So Jar 20172018

State of the Judiciary and the
Administration of Justice
Annual Report,
t 2017 - 2018
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 I
Annual Report,
t 2017 - 2018

Annual Report,
t 2017 - 2018
STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
ANNUAL REPORT
2017 -2018
State of th
Admi
t 2017 - 2018
Annual Report,
II State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
Published by
The Judiciary of Kenya
P.O. Box 30041 - 00100, Nairobi
Tel. +254 20 2221221
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval
system, without written permission from the author or acknowledging
the source except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.
Copyright © 2019 by Judiciary of Kenya: Seventh Edition, 2019
Published in Nairobi, Kenya
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 III
Foreword
It is in the above context that I made
an undertaking to Kenyans, during
the launch of the SJT, that the courts
will clear matters that were five years
and above as the end of 2018. Indeed,
case backlog continues to be one of the
major challenges facing the Judiciary.
F
During the year under review, we put
or the last seven years, the
in place special and general measures
Judiciary has tracked and reported
to ensure that this target was achieved.
to the public on its progress and
The measures included judicial service
challenges in carrying out the reform
weeks which targeted court stations
agenda in pursuit of its constitutional
with the heaviest backlogs, court and
mandate. Through the State of the
practice directions aimed at expediting
Judiciary and Administration of Justice
disposal of matters, performance
annual reports, a statutory report
measurement and management to
provided for under section 5(2)(b) of
ensure progress towards targets, and
the Judicial Service Act, the Judiciary
informs the public on efforts, progress initiatives such as justice@last that
and challenges in pursuing the reform focused on clearance of case backlog.
agenda. The report also includes I am glad that these efforts have led to
activities, achievements and challenges some early results.
as noted from other state and non-state As this report reveals, there has been
agencies in the justice sector, thereby substantial progress in the backlog
providing a broad overview of the clearance. At the time I made the
progress in the administration of justice. undertaking to Kenyans, there were
In order to pursue and achieve objectives 170,186 cases that were older than
and purposes of the Judiciary as set five years. At the end of the reporting
out in the Constitution, I launched the period, a total of 80,654 such cases had
Judiciary blueprint titled Sustaining been resolved, leaving a total of 102,773,
Judiciary Transformation: A Service the additional cases being those that
Delivery Agenda 2017-2021, (SJT) attained the 5 year mark subsequent
on January 26, 2017. Through the to the announcement on 26th January,
SJT blueprint, the Judiciary hopes to 2017.
enhance access to justice in all its forms We have also seen significant progress
put in place measures and strategies in the other pillars that undergird the
to clear the case backlog, enhance SJT. The digital strategy in the SJT has
integrity and ethics, embrace and utilize ensured that over 80 courts are now
technology, and provide leadership and connected to the internet. We will
governance. In summary, the SJT builds continue with these efforts until all
on the previous blueprint, Judiciary courts have a steady, reliable internet
Transformation Framework (2012- connection. This is important as the
2016) and focuses on accelerated service Judiciary is also at an advanced stage of
delivery. digitizing most of the court processes.
IV State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
In order to ensure a steady progress Finally, I understand the effort and
in the implementation of the SJT, I energy that has gone into all the
put in place an Implementation and activities covered in this report. Justice
Monitoring Committee (IMC) of the sector institutions have overcome
SJT blueprint, which is chaired by the varying challenges and produced
Deputy Chief Justice. The IMC has put results that make a positive impact in
in place measures to ensure that the the administration of justice. I therefore
SJT is executed through a bottom-up extend my appreciation to the Judiciary
approach and in a manner that best and indeed all other agencies whose
serves service delivery requirements activities are covered in this report.
of each implementing unit within the
Judiciary. I thank you all.
Hon. Justice David Kenani Maraga, EGH

Even as we continue with the reform
Chief Justice and President of the Supreme
agenda set out in the SJT and other
policy documents, we are in a process of Court of Kenya,
constant reflection on how to improve Chairman of the National Council for the
our institutional structures. During Administration of Justice
the period under review, a report on
organizational review and restructuring 28th February 2019
was submitted to the Judicial Service
Commission for adoption. This,
together with other ongoing reforms,
will ensure that the Judiciary operates
at its optimum and that the resources at
our disposal (financial and human) are
utilized in the most efficient manner.
However, we also realise that overall

effectiveness in the administration
of justice requires collaboration and
cooperation among the agencies and
players in the justice sector. The reports
from agencies in the justice sector
are also covered in this report. More
importantly, the National Council for
the Administration of Justice (NCAJ),
which I chair, brings together all the
agencies under the sector. It is my hope
that we will make use of these channels
in order to address all the issues that
require a collaborative approach by all
of us.
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 V
Note from the Office
of the Chief Registrar
officers and judicial staff across all
courts and spending units.
While we have clearly laid out the

vision and plans of the Judiciary in
the different policy documents, the
T
he Office of the Chief Registrar institutional arrangements that we have
is tasked with coordinating put, or continue to put in place, provides
and providing support that is a practical means through which
necessary for the courts to deliver these aspirations can be achieved. It
services in an effective manner. is with this in mind that the Judiciary
Accordingly, the Office of the Chief undertook an organizational review in
Registrar is the bridge between the order to reflect on how best to arrange
Administration of the Judiciary and the our institutional structures in order to
management and Staff on one hand, and ensure even better delivery of services.
the Judicial Service Commission on the
other hand. The Chief Registrar is also There is no doubt that our collective
the Secretary to the National Council efforts have seen an impact in the
for the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) delivery of justice. The report shows a
and thereby provides an important link marked and sustained increase in the
between the Judiciary and the justice case clearance rate, reduced distance
sector institutions that come together to the courts through the establishment
under the umbrella of the NCAJ. of new courts, mobile courts and sub
registries, reduced revenue leakage
The main focus of the Judiciary during
through the automation of the payments
the year in review was to provide and
and adoption of the cashless payment
put in place measures and systems to
modes, We have also seen improvement
facilitate the implementation of the
in the quality of decisions through the
Judiciary’s policies, which include:
colloquia, exchange programs and
Strategic Plan, the Strategic Blueprint
extensive trainings that have been
(the SJT) among other institutional
attended by our judges, judicial officers
policies. Accordingly, we were able
and judicial staff. These are encouraging
to undertake many activities (most of
results and we shall continue to confront
which are highlighted in this report)
the existing challenges and obstacles in
and these include: the initiation and
pursuit of our vision.
completion of court infrastructure
which comprises the construction of Thank you.
new courts, rehabilitation of old and
Anne A. Amadi, CBS
dilapidated courts, provision of transport
Chief Registrar of the Judiciary, and
for Judges and courts, installation of Secretary, National Council on the
Wi-Fi and cable internet connectivity Administration of Justice
to over 80 courts, and the recruitment
28 February 2019
and appropriate deployment of judicial
VI State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
Acknowledgment
T
he State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Report
(SOJAR) is published annually and contains a report of activities
undertaken by the Judiciary and other agencies in the justice sec-
tor. The annual exercise of preparing this report takes the collective effort
of the different agencies whose activities are covered here. We therefore
thank the leadership in the different institutions for participating in this
process. We specifically thank the officers from the different agencies for
compiling and submitting institutional reports.
The SOJAR Committee was constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice

and tasked with the responsibility of preparing the report. We thank
the following members who participated in drafting the main chapters
of the report: Dr. Conrad Bosire (Chairman), Irene Omari (Secretary),
Isaac Wamaasa, Mundia Muchiri, Hon. Joseph Were, Dr. Freda Githiru
-Mugambi, Moses Maranga, Martin Astiba, Lucy Njaramba, Dominic
Maina, Dr. Masha Baraza, Fred Nyinguro, John Muriuki, Sophie Kaibiria,
George Balozi, Jackie Mulwa, Mercy Mwirigi, Hon. Moses Wanjala, Lewis
Butaki, Mercy Masese, and Anthony Sissey. We also thank the editorial
team that went through the various drafts to produce the final report.
Finally, we thank the leadership of the Judiciary for providing support and
facilitation that enabled us to go through all the steps and activities that
went into the preparation and finalization of the report.
Thank you.
Dr. Conrad Bosire,

Chief of Staff
Chairman, State of the Judiciary Report Committee
28th February 2019
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 VII
Executive Summary
T
his report covers the activities of the Judiciary and other justice sector
institutions for the period 2017/18. The Judiciary blueprint, Sustaining
Judiciary Transformation: an agenda for service delivery (2017-2021),
which was launched during the previous year (2016/17) informed the activities
of the Judiciary that are covered in this report. The SJT Implementation
Monitoring Committee (IMC), which was established to monitor and oversee
implementation, has put in place measures and systems that facilitated the
implementation of the SJT pillars during the reporting period.
There were changes and transition in the leadership of the Judiciary, in the
Court of Appeal (Office of the President), the High Court (Office of the Principal
Judge), and the Office of the Principal Judge of the Employment and Labour
Relations Court. The transition came at a time when the Judiciary initiated a
process of reviewing its institutional and organizational structure with a view
of ensuring an optimal allocation and alignment of its human resources. The
Organizational Review was completed and submitted to the Judicial Service
Commission (JSC) for consideration and adoption. These events, together with
the implementation of the SJT, provide the Judiciary a sustained opportunity
to reshape and recast its operations in order to ensure an effective pursuit of
achievement of its constitutional mandate.
Indeed, the August 2017 General Election, which took place in during the
period under review, provided an avenue to test the SJT’s pillars. The Judiciary
Elections Committee (JCE) led the preparations and strategies for readiness
of the Judiciary. After the election, the Supreme Court heard and determined
the Presidential election petitions, which resulted in the nullification of the
Presidential election of 8th August 2017. The Court subsequently upheld the
repeat election that was conducted on 26th October 2018. All the other election
petitions were also heard and determined within the statutory timelines and
this was testimony to the adequate preparations of the Judiciary.
The chapters in this report provide highlights of activities, challenges,

and progress in areas of operations of the Judiciary and other justice sector
institutions. The inclusion of the other justice sector institutions provides
a broad view of the activities and achievements of the justice sector. The
Constitution calls on state agencies and other institutions in the justice chain
to embrace cooperation and collaborative approaches in order to ensure the
VIII State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
effective administration of justice. This report provides information, and an initial
basis to support coherence and harmony.
Chapter one of the report focuses on leadership and management. The chapter notes
the progress and challenges in the specific areas of focus in the implementation
of the SJT. Starting with backlog clearance, the chapter details the progress in
the undertaking by the Chief Justice to clear cases that are five years or older. At
the time the Chief Justice made the undertaking, there was a backlog of 170,186
cases in the entire Judiciary that were over 5 years old. As at 30th June 2018, total
case backlog of cases over five years in age stood at 83,468, details of which are
covered in Chapter two. The Chapter also notes the significant growth in donor
funding and partnerships during the period under review, with the major highlight
being the launch of the Programme for Legal Empowerment and Aid Delivery in
Kenya (PLEAD). The PLEAD Programme is a Euro 34 Million Programme for the
Kenya Justice system which focuses on 12 counties and whose programme seeks
to strengthen the rule of law and effectiveness in the criminal justice sector for a
period of five years.
The Chapter also details the number of documents (institutional, policy and
legislative) that were developed during the reporting period, as well as the
committees and taskforces that the Judiciary established or participated in
establishing.
One of the pillars of the SJT is to strengthen the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman.
The Chapter indicates that during the reporting period, a total 3515 complaints were
lodged. Out of these, 2324 complaints were processed and closed successfully. This
represented 66 per cent of the total complaints received.
Chapter two is on the theme of access to justice and is divided into two parts. The first
part analyses backlog and statistics of cases before the different courts. The chapter
provides quantitative and qualitative information from the courts and provides a
picture of how courts are performing. In the FY 2017/18, a total of 402,243 cases
were filed in the Judiciary out of which 283,788 were criminal cases while 118,455
were civil cases. In the same period, a total of 370,488 cases were resolved in all
courts, which comprised 243,821 criminal cases and 126,667 civil cases. Figure
2.1 gives the trend for filed and resolved cases in the Judiciary from FY 2014/15
to FY 2017/18. Cases filed in the Judiciary rose from 344,180 in the FY2016/17 to
402,243 cases in the FY 2017/18, which is a 15 per cent increase, which is a likely
indicator of the rising level of public confidence in the Judiciary. By the end of the
FY 2017/18, there were 553,187 pending cases in the Judiciary, which comprised
219,686 criminal cases and 333,501 civil cases.
Effective administration of justice requires strategies beyond the courtroom.

Accordingly, the second part of the Chapter describes the various strategies and
efforts that have been put in place to broadly enhance and improve access to
justice. The initiatives detailed in the chapter include: reduction of case backlog;
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 IX
digitization of Judiciary processes and enhancement of human resource capacity.
Other measures are: improvement of court infrastructure, implementation of
performance management and measurement, and entrenchment of alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms.
Chapter three covers the activities of tribunals. The Constitution places tribunals
under the Judiciary, therefore making the bodies a critical part of the Judiciary’s
broader structure. Previously, the different tribunals were under the respective
ministries. There are about 60 tribunals in Kenya. The chapter reports that five
tribunal transited to the Judiciary during the reporting period bringing the
cumulative figure of those that have been transited by the National Treasury
to 20. During the period under review, 5,615 cases were filed while 2,530 cases
were resolved. At the close of the financial year, there were 11,100 cases pending
in all tribunals. The chapter also contains jurisprudence from the decisions of the
tribunals.
Chapter four reviews jurisprudence that emerged from the courts during the period
under review. Courts at various levels made several ground breaking decisions in
various areas of law including electoral laws, constitutional law, criminal law,
family law, land and environment, and employment and labour matters among
others, which advanced the course of justice and development of jurisprudence.
Decisions covered under this chapter include those from the High Court, the
Employment and Labour Relations Court, the Environment and Land Court, the
Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The Chapter also includes a list of laws
that were declared unconstitutional by the courts during the period under review.
Chapter five reports on the development and status of human resource in the
Judiciary. The goal of the Judiciary is to ensure that there is adequate human
resource to support the operations of the Judiciary. During the period under review,
the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) concluded a recruitment process for various
officers whereby 67 people were appointed. 49 of the new employees (representing
73 per cent) are female, while 18 of them (27 per cent) are male. 42 Resident
Magistrates were appointed, 10 Law Clerks and 15 others in different positions
of service. The Judiciary had of 5,698 employees as at the end of the reporting
period. The Judiciary is composed of 155 Judges (2.8 per cent); 513 Magistrates
and Kadhis (9.2 per cent) and 4,930 (88.1 per cent) Judicial Staff. There are 2,728
female employees representing 48.7 % and 2,870 are male, representing 51.3% of
the Judiciary workforce. 91 members of staff are Persons living With Disabilities
(PWDs), representing 1.6 per cent of the Judiciary workforce.
The Chapter reports a number of policy development during the reporting period, all
aimed at ensuring an effective and optimal human resource outlay in the Judiciary.
These include the successful conclusion of the Judiciary Organizational Review,
and the Judiciary Training Policy and the Records Management Curriculum.
X State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
Chapter six provides an update on the Judiciary’s training and capacity development,
a mandate that is executed through the Judiciary Training Institute. The JTI led
various activities focusing on innovativeness in learning, research, and training.
In this regard, JTI oversaw the production of various publication and studies that
continue to assist in research and capacity development. The publications focused
on areas such as backlog clearance, and election dispute resolution. The JTI also
assisted in carrying out capacity and training needs assessment, which formed the
basis of the training calendar for the Judiciary.
The JTI also supported the development of various policy and institutional document,
including the Judicial Code of Conduct, and the Judiciary Training Policy. Other
activities included regional and international partnerships and collaboration in the
area of judicial education and capacity development.
Chapter seven provides updates on the progress with the Judiciary’s physical
infrastructure across the country. In total, there are 102 court construction and
rehabilitation works are at various stages of progress and measures have been put
in place to complete the projects within the stipulated timeframe and budgetary
provisions while maintaining good quality of finishes. Once completed, these
courts will provide adequate infrastructure that will improve physical access to
courts and reduce the distance travelled in search of justice.
During the period under review, there were 54 courts that were undergoing
construction and rehabilitation and tender evaluation for construction was going
on in one court. There were 13 new construction and rehabilitation initiated during
the period under review. The chapter reports that there was drilling and equipping
13 boreholes, shelving works at 10 courts, and provision of furniture for 11 courts.
Policy developments reported include the development of a long-term Judiciary
Infrastructure Master Plan to guide the development of physical infrastructure in
the Judiciary.
Chapter eight highlights the Judiciary’s developments with regard to ICT and
implementation of the digital strategy. The Chapter highlights the progress with
the implementation of the Judiciary operation support system comprising various
components of digitisation (electronic filing and case tracking). Currently,
the solution is under pilot testing phase at the Commercial and Tax Division in
Milimani where 333 cases have been filed online and payment of Ksh 1.9 million
made through the KCB Mpesa solution. More than 14 law firms are participating in
the pilot project. The chapter also reports that a total of 147,789 have been captured
in the Case Tracking System. Other planned services include court recording and
transcription services, speech to text technology, Enterprise Resource Planning
(Judiciary Financial Integrated Management Information system, Judiciary
Integrated Performance Management and Accountability System, ICT Online
Desk, and the Ombudsman online desk). The ICT Department also developed and
concluded the Judiciary ICT Policy and Master Plan
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 XI
Chapter nine presents an analysis of the Judiciary’s financial performance covering
areas such as funding within the national context, including a comparative analysis
of overall budgetary allocation for the arms of government and public institutions.
The Chapter also provides information on revenue and deposits from courts. The
overall national budget has been growing steadily over the years, from Kshs. 1.5
trillion in the FY 2015/16 to Kshs 1.7 trillion in the FY 2016/17 and Kshs 2.0 trillion
in the FY 2017/18. However, Judiciary’s budget has not grown in tandem with the
overall national budget. While the Executive has been receiving an average of 97
per cent, the Judiciary’s share has remained below 1 per cent of the national budget
over the years. In the FY 2017/18, the budget went down to 0.7 per cent, negatively
impacting on the achievement of planned targets and consequent realization of the
Judiciary’s mandate. Other matters covered in the chapter include: automation
of revenue, expenditure and deposits; delinking of court station accounts from
the sub-county treasuries, and the progress realized in the operationalization of
the Judiciary Fund. The Judiciary finalised and submitted draft Judiciary Fund
Regulations to operationalize the Judiciary Fund.
Chapter 10 contains reports from the justice sector agencies as well as a report
of activities of the various organs and committees of the National Council for the
Administration of Justice. The institutions whose reports of activities are covered
under Chapter 10 are: the National Council for the Administration of Justice (NCAJ),
Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice (OAG&DOJ), Office of
the Director of Prosecutions (ODPP), the National Police Service (NPS), the Kenya
Prisons Service (KPS), the Probation and Aftercare Services, the Community Service
Orders Programme (PAS), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC),
the Council of Governors (CoG), the National Council for Law Reporting (NCLR),
the Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC), the Commission on Administrative
Justice (CAJ), the Independent Police Oversight Authority (IPOA), the National
Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), the Kenya National Commission on Human
Rights (KNCHR), the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), the Council for
Legal Education (CLE), the Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-K), the
Department of Children Services, the CRADLE, and Legal Resources Foundation
(LRF).
The Chapter provides specific reports of the institutions above, thereby giving a
broad view of the progress and challenges of the main actors in the justice sector.
A number of multi-agency activities were undertaken under the aegis of the NCAJ,
the main ones being preparedness for elections and multi-donor programmes
and activities aimed at various justice initiatives. A review of the reports also
demonstrates that the inadequacy of resources continues to be a major challenge
among justice sector institutions, the Judiciary included. However, the institutional
reports also demonstrate a willingnes to collaborate and overcome this and other
challenges highlighted in the report.
XII State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
Table of Contents
Foreword iv
Note from the Office of the Chief Registrar vi
Acknowledgment vii
Executive Summary viii
Table of Content xiii
List of Acronyms xviii
CHAPTER 1 Leadership and Management

1.0 Introduction 2
1.1 Judiciary Transformation 3
1.2 The 2017 General Election 5
1.3 Transition and new leadership 6
1.4 Tributes 6
1.5 Judiciary donor programmes 7
1.6 Institutional publications, policies and legislative developments 8
1.7 Key events presided over by the Judiciary Leadership in 2017/18 8
1.8 Awards and recognitions 9
1.9 Delivery of Speeches by the Chief Justice 9
1.10 Admission of Advocates and swearing in of commissioners 10
1.11 Other highlights for the period 10
1.12 Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman 12
1.13 Public Complaints Resolution and Referral Mechanism 13
1.14 OJO Outreach and Partnerships 15
1.15 Monitoring Compliance with Practice Directions and Service Charters 15
CHAPTER 2 Access to Justice

2.0 Introduction 18
2.1 Overall Judiciary Caseload Statistics 19
2.1.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Judiciary 19
2.1.2 Pending Cases in the Judiciary 20
2.1.3 Case Backlog in the Judiciary 22
2.1.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in the Judiciary 23
2.1.5 Case Clearance Rate for Courts 24
2.2 Supreme Court 24
2.2.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Supreme Court 24
2.2.2 Pending Cases in the Supreme Court 25
2.2.3 Case Backlog at Supreme Court 26
2.3 Court of Appeal 26
2.3.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Court of Appeal 26
2.3.2 Pending Cases in the COA 28
2.3.3 Case Backlog in COA 29
2.3.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in COA 31
2.4 High Court 31
2.4.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in High Court 31
2.4.2 Pending Cases in High Court 34
2.4.3 Case Backlog in High Court. 37
2.4.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in High Court 39
2.5 Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC). 40
2.5.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in ELRC. 40
2.5.2 Pending Cases in ELRC. 42
2.5.3 Case Backlog in ELRC. 44
2.5.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in ELRC 45
2.6 The Environment and Land Court (ELC) 45
2.6.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in ELC. 45
2.6.2 Pending Cases in ELC. 48
2.6.3 Case Backlog in ELC. 49
2.6.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in ELC 50
2.7 Magistrate Court 51
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 XIII
2.7.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Magistrates Courts 51
2.7.2 Pending Cases in Magistrate Court 53
2.7.3 Case Backlog in Magistrate Court. 55
2.8 Kadhis’ Courts 55
2.8.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Kadhi’s court. 55
2.8.2 Pending Cases in Kadhis’ Court 58
2.8.3 Case Backlog in Kadhis’ Court 59
CHAPTER 3 Access to Justice - Tribunals

3.0 Introduction 65
3.1 Tribunals under the Judiciary 66
3.1.1 Industrial Property Tribunal 66
3.1.2 Political Parties Disputes Tribunal 66
3.1.3 Energy Tribunal 67
3.1.4 State Corporations Appeals Tribunal 67
3.1.5 Legal Education Appeals Tribunal 67
3.1.6 Standards Tribunal 67
3.1.7 Competition Tribunal 68
3.1.8 Competent Authority 68
3.1.9 HIV and AIDS Tribunal 68
3.1.10 Rent Restriction Tribunal 68
3.1.11 Cooperative Tribunal 69
3.1.12 Business Premises Rent Tribunal 69
3.1.13 National Environment Tribunal 69
3.1.14 Micro & Small Enterprises Tribunal 69
3.1.15 Communication and Multi Media Appeals Tribunal 70
3.1.16 National Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal 70
3.1.17 Education Appeals Tribunal 71
3.1.18 Sports Disputes Tribunal 71
3.1.19 Public Partnership Private Petitions Committee 72
3.1.20 Transport Licensing Appeals Tribunal 72
3.2 Caseload Statistics for all tribunals 72
3.2.1 Filed and resolved cases in tribunals 72
3.2.2 Pending cases in tribunals 73
3.3 Staff distribution in Tribunals 75
3.4 Tribunal Chairpersons and Locations 75
3.4.1 Induction Training for Tribunals Secretariat Staff 76
3.4.2 Induction Training for New Tribunal Members 76
3.4.3 Institutionalizing performance management 76
3.4.4 Staff Performance Appraisal 77
3.4.5 Assessment of Tribunal Registries and Records Appraisal 77
3.4.6 Launch of Service weeks at the Cooperative Tribunal 77
3.4.7 Disposal of Obsolete Records at the Cooperative Tribunal 77
3.4.8 Assessment of Staff Working in Tribunals (Staff Mapping) 78
3.4.9 Operationalization of New Tribunals 78
3.4.10 Development of Service Delivery Charters 78
3.4 .11 Development of Strategic Plans 78
13.4.12 Capacity building retreats 78
3.4.13 Public Awareness Initiatives 79
3.5 Jurisprudence from Tribunals 80
CHAPTER 4 Jurisprudence
4.0 Introduction 118
4.1 Supreme Court 118
4.1.1 Constitutionality of the Death Penalty provided 118
for under Section 204 of the Penal Code
4.1.2 Procedure for Filling Vacancy in the Office of
Deputy Governor 120
XIV State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
4.1.3 Recusal of a Supreme Court Judge 123
4.1.4 Grounds for nullification of an election 124
4.2 Decisions Emanating From The Court of Appeal 139
4.2.1 The Jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Courts to hear
and determine Employment and Labour Relations
Claims and Environment and Land Matters 139
4.2.2 Whether a Judge can be sued in a course of action
arising from the lawful performance of his or her
judicial functions and whether judicial immunity
is absolute 142
4.2.3 Article 45(3) of the Constitution on equality of spouses
at the time of marriage, during the marriage and at the
dissolution of marriage does not translate to equal matrimonial
property entitlement 147
4.2.4 Can a resulting trust arise where property is transferred in
circumstances in which the transferor did not intend to transfer
the beneficial interest to the transferee? 149
4.3 Jurisprudence Emanating From The High Court During The Reporting
Period 152
4.3.1 To what extent are consumers entitled to the Right to Nutritional
Information and Storage directions under Article 46 of
the Constitution 152
4.3.2 Whether a Kenyan by birth can lose his/her citizenship by acquisition
of another country’s citizenship 154
4.3.3 The Right of an Adopted Child to know the Identity of his/her Biological
Parents 156
4.3.4 Whether or not the decision of the Government of the Republic
of Kenya to disband the Department of Refugees Affairs and appoint
a Task Force to implement the closing of the Dadaab Refugee Camp
Complex and repatriation of the refugees of Somali origin to Somali
violates the constitutional right of the refugees. 163
4.3.5 Requests for extradition and legal assistance by the International
Criminal Court (ICC) Should be In conformity with the laws of Kenya 167
4.4 Cases From The Environment And Land Court 171
4.4.1 Who has the locus standi to bring an action on the right to a clean
and healthy environment? 171
4.4.2 Customary law trusts are not subject to limitation periods under the
Limitation of Actions Act. 172
4.4.3 The Effect of Death of a Donor of a Power of Attorney to a Suit
Instituted by the Donee of the Power Attorney 174
4.5 Decisions From The Employment and Labour Relations Court 176
4.5.1 Poor performance of an employee per se is not sufficient reason for
termination of employment 176
4.5.2 The Salaries and Remuneration Commission is required to observe
fairness and adherence to the dictates of the Constitution while
undertaking a job evaluation 179
4.5.3 A court can only interfere with an internal disciplinary action where
there is a breach of the process and with a view to setting that process right 180
CHAPTER 5 Human Resource Management & Development

5.1 Key milestones 185
5.1.1 Human resource manual review taskforce 185
5.1.2 Performance appraisal system 186
5.1.3 Organisation review 187
5.1.4 Recruitment 187
5.2 Authentication of certificates 189
5.3 Career Progression and Promotions 190
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 XV
5.3.1 Promotion of Judicial Officers 190
5.3.2 Promotions of Judicial Staff in PLS 9 and above 190
5.3.3 Promotions of judicial staff in PLS 8 and below 190
5.4 Confirmation in appointment 191
5.5 Separation of Employees 192
5.6 Disciplinary control 194
5.6.1 Complaints /petitions against Judges 194
5.6.2 Disciplinary Matters for Judicial Officers 194
5.6.3 Disciplinary matters for judicial staff, pls 9 and above 195
5.6.4 Disciplinary matters for judicial staff, pls 8 and below 196
5.6.5 Analysis matters carried over and finalized in FY 2017/2018 196
5.6.6 Disciplinary Matters Finalized In FY 2017/2018 197
5.6.7 Disciplinary actions on disciplinary matters received in fy 2017/18 198
5.6.8 Disciplinary Actions Carried Over From FY 2016/17 198
5.7 Training and Development 199
5.7.1 KSG Courses Conducted In FY 2017/18 per School 200
5.8 General Attachment and Pupillage 203
5.9 Judicial Attachment 203
5.10 Declaration of Assets and Liabilities 204
5.11 Employee Wellness Programmes 204
5.12 Transport 205
5.13 Judiciary Establishment and Employee Composition 205
5.14 Employee composition 211
CHAPTER 6 Training and Capacity Building within The Judiciary:

The Judiciary Training Institute
6.0 Introduction: Establishment and Mandate of JTI 230
6.1 Activities Held Towards Implementation of the
Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT) Blueprint 231
6.2 The Judiciary Training Master Calendar 2017/2018 232
6.2.1 The 2017/2018 Annual Judges Colloquium 234
6.2.2 Annual Magistrates and Kadhis Colloquium 235
6.3 Regional Programs 236
6.3.1 The Africa Judicial Education Network on Environmental Law: AJENEL 237
6.3.2 HIV/TB Sub Committee on Judicial Education 237
6.3.3 East African Judicial Education Committee (EAJEC) 237
6.3.4 Benchmarking visits 238
6.4 Research and Policy Programs Undertaken 239
6.4.1 Judiciary Training and Development Policy 239
6.4.2 Justice Needs and Satisfaction Survey 239
6.4.3 Training Needs Assessment 239
6.4.4 Development of the Judicial Code of Conduct. 239
6.4.5 Alternative Justice System (AJS) 240
6.4.6 Study on Clearing Case Back Log 240
6.4.7 Development of Kadhis Handbook and Rules of Practice for
Kadhis Courts 240
6.4.8 Development of Court Administrators Handbook 240
6.4.9 Study on Performance Evaluation Tools for Judicial Officers 240
6.4.10 Development of a Bench book on Environmental Law 241
6.5 Training Innovations 241
6.6 Digitization at JTI 241
6.7 Publications 242
CHAPTER 7 Infrastructure
7.1 Achievements 244
CHAPTER 8 Digital Strategy

8.1 Judiciary digital strategy 275
8.1.1 Judiciary operation support system 275
8.1.2 The electronic filing (e-filing) system 276
XVI State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
8.1.3 Case tracking system (CTS) 277
8.2 Court management systems 278
8.2.1 Court Recording and Transcription Solution (CRTS) 278
8.2.2 Speech to text solution 278
8.3 Enterprise Resource Planning 278
8.3.1 Judiciary Financial Management Information System ( JFMIS) 278
8.3.2 Judiciary Asset Management System ( JIAMS) 279
8.3.3 Judiciary integrated performance management and accountability
system ( JIPMAS) 279
8.3.2 Judiciary ombudsman online service desk 280
8.3.3 Automated ICT support desk 280
8.4 Document and archive management 280
8.5 ICT Infrastructure 281
8.6 Judiciary ICT policy and master plan 284
CHAPTER 9 Finance And Accounts

9.1 Funding the Judiciary within the national context 287
9.1.1 Overall budgetary allocation for the three Arms of Government 287
9.2.1 Budget Requirements in the Governance Justice Law and Order
Sector (GJLOS) 290
9.3 Judiciary budget requirements versus the allocated Budget 292
9.4 Approved budget estimates 293
9.5 Expenditure Analysis and Absorption Levels 293
9.6 Court Revenue 295
9.7 Court Deposits 300
9.8 Automation of revenue, expenditure and deposits management 303
9.9 Operationalization of Judiciary Fund 303
9.10 Financial Challenges 303
CHAPTER 10 The State of the Agenciesand Collaboration in the

Justice Sector
10.1 Bail And Bond Implementation Committee 306
10.2 Ncaj Special Taskforce On Children Matters 309
10.3 Criminal Justice Reform Committee 309
10.4 Court Users Committee (Cuc) Program 309
10.5 Office Of The Attorney General 315
10.6 Office Of The Director Of Public Prosecution 318
10.7 National Police Service 323
10.8 Kenya Prisons Services 327
10.9 Probation And After Care Services 330
10.10 Community Service Orders 332
10.11 Community Services Order Programme 338
10.12 Ethics And Anti-Corruption Commission 340
10.13 Council Of Governors 345
10.14 National Council For Law Reporting 346
10.15 Kenya Law Reforms Commission 355
10.16 Commission On Administrative Justice 359
10.17 Independent Police Oversight Authority 362
10.18 Witness Protection Agency 368
10.19 National Transport And Safety Authority 373
10.20 National Crime Research Centre 376
10.21 Kenya National Commission On Human Rights 377
10.22 Kenya Human Rights Commission 380
10.23 Council For Legal Education 387
10.24 Federation Of Women Lawyers In Kenya 391
10.25 Department Of Children Services 394
10.26 The Cradle 397
10.27 Legal Resources Foundation 398
10.28 Judiciary 405
10.29 Reports From Court Users Committees 408
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 XVII
Acronyms
AACs Area Advisory Councils IACD International Anti-Corruption Day

ACECA Anti - Corruption and IAU Internal Affairs Unit
Economic Crimes Act ICMS Integrated Court Management
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution System
AG Attorney General ICT Information Communication and
APP Africa Prison Project Technology
CAJ Commission on Administrative ICTA ICT Authority
Justice IEC Information, Education and
CARPS Capacity Assessment and Communication
IJS
Rationalization Informal Justice Systems
Programme IPOA Independent Police Oversight
CDF Constituency Development Fund Authority
CIC Case Intake Committee JATS Judiciary Automated Transcription
CJS Community Justice System System
CKL Child Line Kenya JFMIS Judiciary Information Management
CMA Capital Markets Authority Information System
CMS Content Management System JIAMS Judiciary Information Asset
CMS Case Management System Management System
CPC Criminal Procedure Code JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
CPIMIS Child Protection Information JIPMAS Judiciary Information Performance
Management System Management System
CRTS Court Recording and Transcription JPIP Judicial Performance Improvement
System Project
CSO Community Service Order JSC Judiciary Service Commission
CTS Case Tracking System JTF Judiciary Transformation Framework
CUC Court Users Committee KCA Kenya Children Assembly
CVPT Crime and Violence Prevention KDF Kenya Defence Forces
Training KHRC Kenya Human Rights Commission
DCRT Daily Court Return Template KIP Kenya Integrity Plan
DDD Digital Divide Data KLRC Kenya Law Reform Commission
DIALS Declarations of Income, Assets and KPS Kenya Prisons Service
Liabilities KPS Kenya Prisons Services
EACC Ethics and Anti-Corruption LAN Local Area Network
Commission LRF Legal Resources Foundation
EFT Electronic Fund Transfer MDAs Ministries/departments/
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning agencies
FGM Female Genital Mutilation MTI Mediation Training
FIDH International Federation on Human International
Rights MUHURI Muslims for Human Rights
GAA Government Advertising Agency MVI Motor Vehicle Inspection
XVIII State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
NCAJ National Council on the PSVs Public Service Vehicle
Administration of Justice RODI Resources Oriented
NCCJR National Committee on Development Initiatives
Criminal Justice Reforms RTGS Real Time Gross Settlement
NCCS National Council for Children SCC Sector Coordinating
Services Committee
NCRC National Crime Research SIDA Swedish International
Centre Development Cooperation
NGOs Non-Governmental Agency
Organisations SIL Strategic Impact Litigation
NLAS National Legal Aid Service SJT Sustaining Judiciary
NPS National Police Service Sustainability
NPSC National Police Service TOT Training of Trainers
Commission UNGASS United Nations General
NTSA National Transport and Safety Assembly Special Session
Authority UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
OCS Officer Commanding Station VAC Violence Against Children
ODPP Office of the Director of Public VEOs Violent Extremist Offenders
Prosecution VISA Visitors International Stay
ORMS Offender Records Admission
Management System VPN Virtual Private Network
OVC Orphans and Vulnerable WPA Witness Protection Agency
Children
PEV Post-Election Violence
PMERL Planning and Reporting
Template
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 XIX
XX State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
Chapter 1
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018 1
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
1.0 Introduction
T
he Judiciary, like all other State organs and institutions of governance, draws its
primary power and authority from the people of Kenya. The Constitution provides,
under Article 1 (3), that all authority emanates from the people and is vested
collectively in the Judiciary and independent tribunals, together with the other arms of
government (the Legislature and the Executive). The Constitution further provides for the
objects, purpose and manner in which judicial power and authority is to be exercised. In
this regard, Article 159 of the Constitution provides that the exercise of judicial powers
should ensure equality in the administration of justice, expeditious delivery of justice,
employment and embracement of justice systems, and upholding of the substance of
justice above technicalities and processes in the administration of justice. The Constitution
is clear that the exercise of judicial power and authority should enhance and promote the
purposes and principles enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide guidance to
the leadership of the Judiciary as well as a normative basis that binds all exercise of judicial
power and authority.
The Chief Justice heads the Judiciary and is, by virtue of his position, the Chair of the
Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the principal body that oversees the operations of the
entire Judiciary. The Chief Justice is the President of the Supreme Court and is assisted in
this role by the Deputy Chief Justice, who is the Vice President of the Supreme Court. The
Chief Justice also chairs the National Council for the Administration of Justice (NCAJ), and
the National Council for Law Reporting (NCLR). The year under review, 2017/18, was also
the first full year under the new leadership in the Judiciary comprising of Chief Justice Hon.
Justice David Kenani Maraga, and Hon. Lady Justice Philomena Mbete Mwilu, the Deputy
Chief Justice.
The Office of the Chief Registrar is charged with overall coordination of departments in the
Judiciary and general administration. Under Article 161(2) (c) of the Constitution, the Chief
Registrar of the Judiciary is the chief administrator and accounting officer of the Judiciary,
the Secretary to the JSC and the NCAJ. Responsibilities of the Chief Registrar include the
overall administration of the judiciary, overseeing the preparation and presentation of the
Judiciary budget to the National Assembly for approval, overall management of judiciary
resources (revenue, human resources and physical resources) and the procurement process,
and facilitation of efficient judicial services.
The Constitution and other enabling provisions of the law establish the Offices of Judges of
the Supreme Court, Judges of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the High Court, Judges of the
Employment and Labour Relations Court and Judges of the Environment and Land Court.
There are heads of each of these courts that complement the Judiciary leadership. The Office
of the President of the Court of Appeal (PCoA) is in charge of the Court of Appeal while the
Principal Judge (PJ) heads the High Court. Both offices are established by the Constitution.
2 State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
The positions of Presiding Judge of the Environment and Land Court (ELC), and the Principle
Judge of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) are established via legislation.1
The heads of the different courts form part of the Judiciary leadership and they assist the
Chief Justice and the chief reistrar of the Judiciary in the efficient administration of justice
and generally ensuring that the various courts live up to expectations of the Constitution.
Below the leadership described above is a management and administration structure that
comprises registrars, directorates, departments, units, and semi-autonomous agencies.
1.1 Judiciary Transformation
The current blue print for the Judiciary, Sustaining Judiciary Transformation: A Service
Delivery Agenda (SJT) 2017-2021, which was launched in the previous financial year
(2016/17), continued to lead and guide service delivery and enhancement of judicial
services for the reporting period. The strategic blueprint provides for a new and specific
focus on enhancing service delivery, which seeks to consolidate the gains realized during
the implementation of Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF), 2012-2016 whose focus
was mainly institutional and capacity building.
The SJT blue print contains the Judiciary’s promise of a new deal for the Kenyan people. It
specifically focuses on enhancing service delivery through targeted improvement of work
methods and a dynamic corporate culture that emphasizes integrity reimagined while
reinforcing measurable performance standards. The five main pillars of SJT are: Enhanced
Access to Justice, Clearance of Case Backlog, Integrity and the Fight Against Corruption, the
Judiciary Digital Strategy and Institutional Leadership and Governance.
The Chief Justice established an Implementation and Monitoring Committee (IMC) of the
SJT strategic blueprint, which is chaired by the Deputy Chief Justice. The implementation
of the strategic blueprint is executed through a bottom-up approach where each unit, court
station, and directorate is required to contextualize the strategic blueprint in a manner
that best serves their particular service delivery requirements. The key task of the IMC is to
monitor and assist each unit and court station in the implementation of their comprehensive
action plans and strategies towards the realization of the wider objectives of the SJT.
During the launch of the SJT on January 26, 2017, the Chief Justice made an undertaking
to Kenyans that the Judiciary will clear the backlog of cases that are five year or older by
the end of 2018. At the time, there were 170,186 cases older than five years. At the end
of the reporting period a total of 80,654 such cases had been resolved, leaving a total of
102,773. This difference in figures was as a result of cases that were not five years old at the
commencement of the exercise but which attained 5 years during the reporting period.
1 Section 6 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2011 and Section 5 of the Employment
and Labour Relations Act 2011, respectively.
The SJT Implementation Monitoring Committee (IMC) continues to monitor the pace
and progress of the clearance of backlog. Courts at all levels continue to undertake extra
measures, such as, organizing service weeks in stations that have higher backlogs numbers,
prioritization of resources towards backlog clearance, and engagement with stakeholdres in
the justice chain to reduce obstacle to the clearance of case backlog.
Along with case backlog clearance, the other top priority has been the ICT transformation,
which entails the digitization of court files and court proceedings and automation of registry
and administrative processes. Pilot projects for the digitization of court records were
undertaken at the Commercial Division of the High Court during the year under review. This
entailed the testing of an online case tracking system that enables online filing, digital file
searches, status of the case and cause listing, among others. The pilot project also entailed
electronic filing of cases (e-filing), automated fee assessment, e-payments, and e-service.
Launch of the commercial Justice Sector Steering Committee Meeting
During the reporting period, the IMC met with technical support experts, registrars,
deputy registrars, directors and tribunal heads with the aim of enhancing understanding
of SJT pillars and key result areas and the development of harmonized, implementable and
measurable service charter targets for all units.
The IMC is mandated to monitor SJT implementation and this entails the review of
activities; support to the Leadership and Management Teams (LMT) to boost station-
based implementation strategies and enhance the flow of information between leadership
units and court stations; LMT capacity building and change management workshops to
ensure substantive understanding of the SJT pillars and Key Result Areas and that LMTs
take ownership of SJT implementation at court station level; team building exercises;
change management workshops with directors, and their staff to deepen appreciation of
the role of directorates in supporting and facilitating courts to deliver quality services and
implementation of a communication strategy that will enhance the flow of information and
exchange of ideas both within the Judiciary and externally with the institutions’ clients,
stakeholders and members of the public.
Unveiling of the State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Report 2016 – 2017 (SOJAR). December 15, 2017
1.2 The 2017 General Election
As part of its strategy for the preparations of the 2017 elections, the Judiciary established
the Judiciary Committee on Elections (JCE) in August 2015 to guide the Judiciary’s work
in electoral dispute resolution. The preparations in the period leading to the August 2017
General Election entailed policy and legislative amendments in election matters, revision
of rules relating to petitions, monitoring of the handling of election petitions, training of
judicial officers, and stakeholder engagement and consultation. A number of meetings were
undertaken, under the auspices of the National Council for the Administration of Justice
(NCAJ), which brought together various agencies (the Police, the Independent Electoral and
Boundaries Commission, Judiciary, Civil Society Organisations, development partners, and
the media) to discuss and gauge preparedness for the elections.
The Presidential election petition that was filed on 18th August 2017 led to the nullification
of the presidential election results by a majority of the Supreme Court on September 1, 2017
and the ordering of fresh elections. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the repeat
presidential election results on November 20, 2017. Election petitions increased from 188
in the 2013 General Election to 391 in 2017. There were three presidential election petitions,
35 petitions against Governors, 15 petitions senators, 98 against Members of the National
Assembly, 12 against Women Representatives, 139 against Members of County Assemblies,
80 Party List petitions at Magistrates’ Courts, and nine Party List petitions at the High Court.
The full Supreme Court bench led by the Hon. Chief Justice, David Maraga, during the hearing of the Presidential
Election petition.
1.3 Transition and new leadership
During the 2017/18 Financial Year, various courts conducted elections. The Court of Appeal
judges elected Hon. Justice William Ouko as the President to succeed Justice (RTD) Paul
Kihara Kariuki was appointed the Attorney-General. Judges of the High Court elected Hon.
Lady Justice Lydia Achode as their Principal Judge, while Hon. Justice Maureen Onyango
was elected the Principal Judge of the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
1.4 Tributes
During the reporting period, the Judiciary was unfortunate to lose Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph
Louis Onguto of the High Court Civil Division and 13 staff.
The Late Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph Louis Onguto
1.5 Judiciary donor programmes
Over the years, the Judiciary has enjoyed a good relationship with various development
partners. Judiciary donors and development partners include United Nations agencies such
as UNODC, UNDP, UNICEF, Embassies (Denmark, United Kingdom, United States, Germany,
Netherlands and Sweden), the World Bank, and the European Union. Donor agencies and
implementing partners include the International Development Law Organisation (IDLO),
Ford Foundation, GiZ, IJM, Space for Giants, among others.
On March 9, 2018, the Chief Justice launched of the Programme for Legal Empowerment
and Aid Delivery in Kenya (PLEAD), a five-year programme that seeks to strengthen the
rule of law by enhancing delivery of justice and alternatives to imprisonment in the criminal
justice system. This is in accordance with Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). This project will address factors that hinder efficient delivery
of justice in the various institutions in the criminal justice sector. The PLEAD project is
co-financed by the European Development Fund (EDF), UNDP and UNODC with a budget
of EURO 34,150,000 and complements investment in similar areas by the Government
of Kenya. The programme will focus on 12 counties - Wajir, Mandera, Lamu, Tana River,
Marsabit, Isiolo, Garissa, Kisumu, Nairobi, Mombasa, Uasin Gishu and Nakuru.
The Hon. Chief Justice, David Maraga, 3rd left, during the launch of the PLEAD program on 9th March, 2018.
1.6 Institutional publications, policies and legislative developments
As an institution, the Judiciary constantly reflects on how to ensure that its institutions,
processes, and systems remain aligned with its Constitutional mandate. This has led to
the development and review of laws, regulations, rules and policies that ensure that the
Judiciary’s operations are congruent with its broader mandate and responsibilities. The
following policy and legislative developments were undertaken during the period under
review:
Institutional publications
• Revised Presidential Elections Rules, 2017 by the Supreme Court.
• Civil Appeals & Applications Practice Directions for the Court of Appeal
• ELRC Bench book
• Presidential Election Petition Compendium
• Compilation of Decisions on Bail and Bail
• Election Dispute Resolution (EDR) Bench Book
• Justice Needs Survey Report
• Performance Management and Evaluation Report
• Inheritance Law Booklet
Policy documents
• Judiciary Library Services Guidelines
• ICT Policy
• ICT Masterplan
• Judiciary Fund Regulations
• The Organizational Review of the Judiciary was submitted to the JSC for adoption.
Judiciary committees and taskforces
• The Taskforce on Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms was gazette vide

Gazette Notice number 6869 of 21st July 2017.
• The Judiciary joined the Taskforce on the Mandatory nature of the death sentence
formed by the Hon. Attorney General.
1.7 Key events presided over by the Judiciary Leadership in 2017/18
During the year under review, the Judiciary leadership engaged in a number of key events,
all of which are geared towards enhancing its constitutional mandate.
The main activities involved court visits to inspect ongoing constructions works, engage
with Judges, Judicial officers and staff, assess the working environment and also engage with
key stakeholders in the counties including county and national Government leaderships.
The Hon. Chief Justice, David Maraga accompanied by the Hon. Lady Justice Jackline Kamau during a registry inspection.
1.8 Awards and recognitions
Various honours and awards were conferred upon several members of the Judiciary.
The Chief Justice was named by the The NewAfrican as one of the “Most Influential Africans
of 2017”. In addition, the Chief Justice received the distinguished service award from the
Law Society of Kenya On March 24, 2018, the 5th CB Madan Award at Strathmore University
on 7th December 2017 and the Jurist of the Year Award from the Kenyan Chapter of the
International Commission of Jurists on December 11, 2017. Supreme Court Judge, Justice
Smokin Wanjala, received an honorary doctorate degree from the Commonwealth University
in London in March 2018.
1.9 Delivery of Speeches by the Chief Justice
The Chief Justice delivered a keynote speech at the 9th Annual African Development
Conference at the Harvard Law School in March 2018. The theme of the speech was “The role
that justice, good governance, and rule of law play in efforts to eliminate poverty and attain
inclusive development.’’
The Hon. Chief Justice David Maraga, 5th right, accompanied by Justice Joel Ngugi, 2nd left and then Chief of Staff,
Dancun Okello, 4th left after delivering a Keynote address at the Harvard Law School on the theme “The Role that
Justice, good Governanceand the Rule of Law plays in an effort to Eliminate Poverty and Attain Inclusive Development”
The Chief Justice also delivered a keynote speech at the 2018 Annual Kenya Diaspora
Conference in Dallas, Texas in May 2018. The theme of the Conference was “The Diaspora
Renaissance: Optimising engagement with Motherland.”
1.10 Admission of Advocates and swearing in of commissioners
During the year under review, the Chief Justice admitted to the Bar a total of 793 advocates.
Table 1.1 Number of Advocates admitted to the Bar, 2017/18
DATE OF ADMISSION NUMBER OF ADVOCATES ADMITTED TO THE BAR

19 July 2017
th
101
17 October 2017
th
98
18 December 2017
th
53
27 June 2018
th
268
28 June 2018
th
273
TOTAL 793

The Chief Justice also swore in members of various bodies, including:

i. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police
ii. The Deputy Inspector - General Administration Police
iii. The Director of Criminal Investigations,
iv. A member of the Board of the Kenya Revenue Authority, and
v. Members of the National Construction Appeals Tribunal.
1.11 Other highlights for the period
• The Deputy Chief Justice Delivered a Lecture Titled “The Role of the Judiciary on 12th
January 2018 at the National Defence College Nairobi.”
• The Judiciary hosted Chief Justices from the East African region in Nairobi from May 9
to May 12, 2018. The meeting was part of efforts to revive and revamp the East African
Chief Justices Forum, a platform that brings together the East African judiciaries.
The Hon. Chief Justice, David Maraga, fourth left, with the Chief Justices from the East African region during the
inaugural meeting of held in Nairobi between 9th to 12th May, 2018.
• The Deputy Chief Justice represented the Chief Justice at the second High Level
Meeting of Chief Justices of Constitutional and Supreme Courts in Cairo, Egypt from
February 18 to 25, 2018
• The Deputy Chief Justice was the guest speaker at the 12th Parliament Post-Election
Seminar for members of the National Assembly on March 5, 2018.
The Hon. Deputy Chief Justice, Philomena Mwilu addressing the Post Election Seminar for Members of the National
Assembly held at Pride Inn Hotel, Mombasa between the 4th to 8th March, 2018.
• The Chief Justice addressed the Global Judicial Integrity Network meeting in Vienna,
Austria on April 10, 2018
• The Chief Justice delivered a keynote speech at the 5th Annual Conference on
Devolution held in Kakamega on April 25, 2018.
• Chief Justice David Maraga paid a courtesy call on Hon. John G. Roberts Jr., Chief
Justice of the United States at the Supreme Court in Washington DC on 21st May 2018
Chief Justice David Maraga paid a courtesy call on Hon. John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice of the United States at the
Supreme Court in Washington DC on 21st May 2018.
1.12 Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman
The Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman (OJO) is an accelerated grievance management

mechanism in the office of the Chief Justice. Its primary mandate entails assisting the
Chief Justice in carrying out the preliminary process of exercising disciplinary powers
vested in the office of the Chief Justice under Section 15, Part IV of the Third Schedule of
the Judicial Service Act (JSA). The Office is further charged with with restoration of public
confidence and improvement of transparency and accountability within the Judiciary and
encouraging public participation and engagement. Through various outreach activities, the
Office endeavours to restore public confidence in the Judiciary. This is achieved by providing
the public with a mechanism for lodging their dissatisfaction through a real time online
complaint system and a team of employees who receive and attend to walk-in clients. The
Judiciary Ombudsman is the Hon. Deputy Chief Justice.
During the reporting period, the office sensitized members of public on its role as an avenue
for receiving and resolving complaints relating to their matters in court or relating to
misconduct of Judiciary employees. The online real time complaints management system
was upgraded with enhanced features so as to improve its performance. The office continued
to carry out its activities to ensure delivery of the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation
service delivery agenda.
1.13 Public Complaints Resolution and Referral Mechanism
In the FY 2017/18, the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman received a total 3515 complaints.
Out of these, 2324 complaints were processed and closed successfully. This represented 66
per cent of the total complaints received. A total of 149 cases were closed with workaround,
meaning that there were chances that the cases would come up again as the matter was not
fully resolved. Another 55 cases were merged, implying that they were similar complaints
lodged multiple times. Table 1.2 presents information on processing of complaints in OJO
Table 1.2: Data on Complaint Processing in OJO
STATE OF COMPLAINT PROCESSING 2016/2017 2017/2018

Closed successful 2235 2324
Closed unsuccessful 4 4
Closed with workaround 90 149
Merged 2 55
New 236 514
Open 438 469
Total 3005 3515
From Table 1.2, there was a 17 per cent increase in total complaints that were processed.
Information on most prevalent complaints is highlighted in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3: Data on Prevalent Complaints registered at OJO
TYPE OF COMPLAINT 2016/17 2017/18 CHANGE

Slow Service 141 198 57
Missing File 122 136 14
Poor Service 79 181 102
Referral cases to Stakeholders 2 66 64
Corruption 37 71 34
Delayed Rulings/Judgements 44 60 16
Date allocation 3 4 1
Delayed Orders 23 71 48
Cash Bail Refunds 8 10 2
Cannibalized files 3 8 5
From Table 1.3, there was an increase in complaints in the various categories. Complaints on
poor service went up by 129 per cent while those on slow service went up by 40 from the
previous financial year. This may be attributable to greater public awareness of their right
to complain to the Office once dissatisfied with the Judiciary services.
The Honorable Chief Justice was at the forefront in the fight against corruption among
Judiciary employees. This could have contributed to the rise of corruption-related complaints
from 37 cases in FY 2016/17 to 71 cases in 2017/18. The increase is an indication that not only
has the institution continued to act with speed to ensure acts of employee misconduct were
brought to book, but also a renewed confidence from the public that swift action would be
taken against any employee implicated in unethical/ corrupt behavior.
Increase in the referral service category was attributed to the increased public confidence in
the Judiciary Ombudsman, therefore bringing forward complaints that could not be handled
directly by the office. Referral complaints were forwarded to the respective stakeholders to
handle accordingly.
Figure 1.1 provides a reflection of the prevailing complaints that were processed during the
reporting period.
Figure 1: Percentage complaints handled by OJO, FY 2017/18
Training on the enhanced features of the upgraded complaints system was undertaken
for the Ombudsman secretariat staff along with liaison officers in a number of courts. This
aimed at ensuring continued timely and accurate response to complaints from the public.
Table 1.4 outlines the trend of the various categories of complaints that were received and
processed over the past four years.
Table 1.4: Trend on complaints processed by OJO ( FY 2014/15 to FY 2017/18)
COMPLAINT PROCESSED 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Slow Service 155 242 141 198
Missing File 149 281 122 136
Poor Service 13 81 79 181
Referral cases to Stakeholders 14 12 2 66
Corruption 29 32 37 71
Delayed Rulings/Judgements 28 94 44 60
Date allocation 8 12 3 4
Delayed Orders 11 21 23 71
Cash Bail Refunds 8 17 8 10
Cannibalized files 4 9 3 8
419 801 462 805
From Table 1.4, there has been a general increase on the number of complaints that were
processed by OJO over time. This demonstrates a rising confidence by the public on
Judiciary internal complaints handling mechanisms. The percentage change in the number
of processed complaints is provided in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5: Trend on percentage complaints processed by OJO ( FY 2014/15 to FY 2017/18)

Slow Service 37% 30% 31% 25%
Missing File 36% 35% 26% 17%
Poor Service 3% 10% 17% 22%
Referral cases to Stakeholders 3% 1% 0% 8%
Corruption 7% 4% 8% 9%
Delayed Rulings/Judgements 7% 12% 10% 7%
Date allocation 2% 1% 1% 1%
Delayed Orders 3% 3% 5% 8%
Cash Bail Refunds 2% 2% 2% 1%
Cannibalized files 1% 1% 1% 1%
Fig.:Comparative Complaint trends FY 2014/2015 to FY 2017/18
1.14 OJO Outreach and Partnerships
The mandate of OJO entails, among other things, to educate the public on the Judiciary and
the redress mechanisms available to them.
This is realized through undertaking of various activities such as participation in the

Agricultural Society of Kenya shows and holding public clinics. During the reporting period,
the office participated in eight ASK shows and undertook 23 clinics in various court stations
which was informed by the outcomes from the 2016/17 Customer Satisfaction Survey.
Stations that recorded a less than 65 per cent customer satisfaction index were visited with
the aim of identifying the customer concerns and addressing them. The office partnered
with a development partner to foster engagements with the public and sensitize them
through printing and distribution of IEC materials and holding public clinics.
1.15 Monitoring Compliance with Practice Directions and Service Charters
The office is entrusted with monitoring court compliance, review corruption indicators
and mal-administration in the Judiciary. The role is undertaken through scheduled and in
some cases, impromptu visits to court stations. It ensures that court stations are adhering
to timelines set out in their service charters as well as sensitize the staff and the public on
the Judiciary processes. During the reporting period, the office undertook spot checks in
36 court stations, compared to 19 undertaken in the last financial period. This 89 per cent
increase in spot checks is attributed to the aggressive exercise the office undertook towards
the last two quarters of the financial year in collaboration with development partners to
ensure compliance in court stations. The corresponding effect of these spot checks can be
seen in the complaint trends highlighted in Tables 1.4 and 1.5. Over time, there has been an
increase in complaints lodged with OJO whenever the office relentlessly engages the public
through participation in diverse activities.
CHAPTER 2
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
2.0 Introduction
T
he enhancement of access to justice has remained a fundamental goal of the Judiciary
as enshrined in the Constitution. This is spearheaded by a system of courts that are
required under the Constitution, to dispense justice to all, without delay and undue
regard to procedural technicalities. The courts are supported by the Judiciary leadership and
administrative structure that guides on policy and organizational environment for proper
functioning of courts. As enshrined in the current Judiciary blueprint, Sustaining Judiciary
Transformation (SJT) (2017-2021) and the Judiciary Strategic Plan (SP) (2014-2018),
promotion of access to Justice is a focal area for continuous Judiciary transformation. The
need to promote access to justice has necessitated the Judiciary to undertake and sustain
policy, legal and administrative reforms using diverse strategic initiatives.
In this Chapter, access to Justice has been explicated in two parts. The first part presents
the status on dispensation of justice by courts. This information is presented using caseload
statistics that cover filed cases, resolved cases, pending cases and case backlog. Caseload
statistics provide factual quantitative information on service delivery by courts. These
statistics provide a platform for; tracking progress of Judiciary programmes and projects
earmarked under the SJT and SP, performance management and measurement, promotion
and placement of Judges and judicial officers and resource allocation to courts. Caseload
data is collected in court rooms, registries and chambers by court assistants using Daily
Courts Returns Template (DCRT) under the supervision of Judges and Judicial officers. The
data is then collated within court station and submitted to the Directorate of Planning and
Organization Performance (DPOP) for analysis and generation of various statistical reports
and policy briefs.
The second part of the Chapter elucidates the strategic efforts and initiatives that aimed
at improving access to justice. These efforts and initiatives included but not limited to the
following; Reduction of case backlog; Digitization of Judiciary processes; Enhancement of
Judiciary human resource capacity; Development of court infrastructure; Implementation
of performance management and measurement; and Entrenchment of alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms.
PART 1:
ACCESS TO JUSTICE:
CASE LOAD STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS
2.1 Overall Judiciary Caseload Statistics
2.1.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Judiciary
Filed cases (FC) refers to cases that are registered or initiated in a court for resolution. The
number of filed cases provides quantitative information about the extent of judicial services
that the public seeks from the Judiciary. Filed cases therefore shows the demand for judicial
services by the public and the litigants. To serve its customers, the Judiciary is constitutionally
bound to resolve cases and hence facilitate accessibility of justice to Kenyans. Resolved cases
(RC) are cases where a judgment, final ruling or consent (including through mediation and
arbitration) closing the case has been made. Hence, cases that are resolved by the Judiciary
depicts the extent of supply of justice by courts. Analysis of the twin phenomena therefore
provide critical information on efficiency and productivity by courts.
In the FY 2017/18, a total of 402,243 cases were filed in the Judiciary out of which 283,788
were criminal cases and 118,455 were civil cases. In the same period, a total of 370,488 cases
were resolved in all courts which comprised 243,82 1criminal cases and 126,667 civil cases.
Figure 2.1 gives the trend for filed and resolved cases in the Judiciary from FY 2014/15 to FY
2017/18.
Figure 2.1: Filed and Resolved Cases in the Judiciary by broad Case Type, 2014/15 to 2017/18
From Figure 2.1, criminal cases remained the bulk of both filed and resolved cases over the
years as compared to civil cases. In the FY 2017/18, the total resolved civil cases were more
than the filed civil cases which points out that overall pending civil cases were reduced.
However, more criminal cases were filed than resolved implying that by the end of the
period under review, pending criminal cases increased. The specific information on filed
and resolved cases for different court types for the last two FYs is given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Trend on filed and resolved cases by court and broad case type
2017/18
2016/17
COURT Criminal Civil
All FC All RC FC RC FC RC ALL FC ALL RC
Supreme Court 38 16 N/A N/A 61 39 61 39
Court of Appeal 1,578 1,052 485 166 1,528 1,029 2,013 1,195
High Court 20,553 27,987 11,898 8,179 13,151 29,503 25,049 37,682
ELRC 6,082 3,668 N/A N/A 5,645 3,661 5,645 3,661
ELC 9,770 6,307 N/A N/A 5,834 7,887 5,834 7,887
Magistrate
300,655 260,319 271,405 235,476 84,680 77,886 356,085 313,362
Court
Kadhis’ Court 5,504 4,833 N/A N/A 7,556 6,662 7,556 6,662
All Courts 344,180 304,182 283,788 243,821 118,455 126,667 402,243 370,488
From Table 2.1, Filed cases in the Judiciary rose from 344,180 cases in the Fy 2016/17 to
402,243 cases in the FY 2017/18. This marked a 15 per cent increase demonstrating rising
confidence by the public in the Judiciary as an institution for resolving their disputes.
2.1.2 Pending Cases in the Judiciary.
Pending cases refer to unresolved cases or cases where the final judicial decision in the case
has not been made at the end of a given period. By the end of the FY 2017/18, there were
553,187 pending cases in the Judiciary, which comprised 219,686 criminal cases and 333,501
civil cases. The trend for pending cases in the Judiciary for the past three FYs by broad case
type is illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: Pending cases by broad case type, 2015/16 to 2017/18
From Figure 2.2, the total pending cases rose by 4 per cent from the 533,350 cases at the end
of 2016/17 FY to 553,187 cases at the end of FY 2017/18. The growth was at a decreasing rate
since the rise that was recorded between the FYs 2015/16 and 2016/17 was 7 per cent. Civil
cases remained the bulk of the pending cases for the past three reporting periods. Detailed
statistics on the trend for pending cases by court and case type is provided in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Pending cases by court and broad case type, 2016/17 -2017/18
COURT FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

TYPE CR CV All CR CV All
Supreme Court N/A 73 73 N/A 95 95
Court of Appeal 1,074 2,313 3,387 1,393 2,812 4,205
High Court 16,888 102,889 119,777 20,329 76,998 97,327
ELRC N/A 13,723 13,723 N/A 15,733 15,733
ELC N/A 27,242 27,242 N/A 24,380 24,380
Magistrate Court 167,407 198,726 366,133 197,964 209,667 407,631
Kadhis’ Court N/A 3,015 3,015 N/A 3,816 3,816
All Courts 185,369 347,981 533,350 219,686 333,501 553,187
Majority of the pending cases were in the magistrate court at 407,631 cases followed by high
court at 97,327 cases. The least number of pending cases were in the supreme court at 95
cases. The percentage pending cases by court type is provided in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Percentage Pending cases by Court Type, 2017/18
Out of all pending cases, 74 per cent were in Magistrate Courts, 18 per cent in High Court, 4
per cent in ELC and 2.8 per cent in ELRC. The other courts shared 1.52 per cent.
2.1.3 Case Backlog in the Judiciary
Case backlog refers to unresolved cases after the expiry of the set timelines. In Kenya, the
maximum desirable timeline that a case ought to have been finalized from the date of filing
is 1 year. At the end of the period under review, the total number of cases classified as
backlog stood at 327,928 cases. Out of these cases, 55 per cent were aged between 1 and 3
years, 23 per cent between 3 and 5 years and 22 per cent were over 5 years. This is illustrated
in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: Percentage case backlog by age in Judiciary, 30th June 2018.
The number of backlog cases aged between 1 and 3 years were 205,762 those between 3 and
5 years were 84,671 while those aged above five years were 82,495. The distribution of case
backlog by age as at 30th June 2018 for different court types is detailed in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Case backlog by age and court, 30th June 2018
Court Type 1-3 years 3-5 years 5 years and above All Ages
Supreme Court 38 6 0 44
Court of Appeal 1,377 755 730 2,862
High Court 33,380 20,605 22,223 76,208
ELRC 8,079 2,310 754 11,143
ELC 8,802 6,751 5,314 20,867
Magistrate Court 152,935 54,244 53,474 260,653
Kadhis’ Court 1,151 0 0 1,151
All Courts 205,762 84,671 82,495 372,928
The Magistrate and High Court had the highest case backlog at 260,653 and 76,208 cases
respectively. By the end of period under review, the Supreme Court and Kadhis’ court
had no case backlog aged over 5 years. The percentage case backlog by court is provided in
Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5: Percentage distribution of case backlog by court type, 30th June 2018
From Figure 2.5, the bulk of case backlog was in the magistrate court at 70 per cent followed
by those in High Court at 21 per cent. Figure 2.5 further shows that the case backlog in Kadhis’
court and Supreme Court was less than 1 per cent at 0.31 and 0.012 per cent respectively.
2.1.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in the Judiciary
Under the current Judiciary blueprint the SJT strategy, reduction in case backlog is a key
focal area. The target has been to finalize cases that have been in court for a period of over 5
years. At the onset of SJT, there were 170,186 cases in the Judiciary which were over 5 years
old. As at 30th June 2018, total case backlog of over five years in age stood at 82,495. Details
on reduction of case backlog reduction by court type under the SJT are provided in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: SJT implementation status on reduction of case backlog by court

Court Type SJT target on Resolved backlog Case backlog % reduction in case
reduction of case cases 5 years and 5 years and backlog 5 years and
backlog than 5 above between 1st above as at 30th above between 1st
years and above January 2017 and June, 2018 January 2017 and
as at 1 Jan 2017
st
30 June 2018
th
30th June 2018
Supreme Court 0 0 0 N/A
Court of Appeal 648 294 730 13%
High Court 58,487 24,921 22,223 -62%
ELRC 771 956 754 -2%
ELC 4,146 4,756 5,314 28%
Magistrate Court 106,134 49,727 53,474 -50%
Kadhis’ Court 0 0 0 N/A
All Courts 170,186 80,654 82,495 -52%
The overall percentage reduction in case backlog older than 5 years between 1st Jan 2017 and
30th June 2018 was 52 per cent. The bulk of the reduction was in the High Court at 62 per
cent followed by the magistrate court at 50 per cent.
2.1.5 Case Clearance Rate for Courts
To cope with the increasing demand for justice as confirmed by the increase in filed cases
over the years in Section 2.1.1, the Judiciary also increased the number of resolved cases to
370,488 from 304,182 in FY 2016/2017. This translated into an efficiency level, calculated
using the case clearance rate (CCR), of 92 per cent. The CCR for various courts is elaborated
in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5: Case clearance rate by court and broad case type, 2017/18
Court Type Criminal Traffic Civil Overall

Supreme Court N/A N/A 64% 64%
Court of Appeal 34% N/A 67% 59%
High Court 69% N/A 224% 150%
ELRC N/A N/A 65% 65%
ELC N/A N/A 135% 135%
Magistrate Court 87% 91% 92% 88%
Kadhi Court N/A N/A 88% 88%
All Courts 86% N/A 107% 92%
The High Court and ELC registered the highest CCR at 150 and 135 per cent respectively. The
CCR for civil cases was greater than 100 percent which depicted declining pendency of civil
cases. The CCR for criminal cases was 86 per cent which pointed to an increase in pending
criminal cases at the end of the period under review.
2.2 Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is established under Article 163 of the Constitution of Kenya and
operationalised by the Supreme Court Act, 2011. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction
to hear and determine disputes relating to the election of the President as well as appellate
jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court
also gives advisory opinions at the request of the National Government, State organ, or
county government. It is composed of 7 judges, headed by the Chief Justice and President of
the Supreme Court.
2.2.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Supreme Court

In the FY 2017/18, 61 cases were filed while 39 were resolved in the Supreme Court. Figure
2.6 provides details on the types of cases that were filed and resolved in the Supreme
Court.
Figure 2.6: Filed and Resolved Cases by type, Supreme Court
As illustrated in Figure 2.6, majority of the filed cases were petitions followed by applications.
For resolved cases, petitions and applications were the majority while advisory opinions
were the least.
2.2.2 Pending Cases in the Supreme Court

By the ed of FY 2017/18, there were 95 cases pending in the Supreme Court. The growth in
pending cases in the Supreme Court for the last five years is highlighted in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7: Growth in pending Cases in Supreme Court, 2013/14 - 2017/18
Between the FY 2016/17 and 2017/18, there was a 30% increase in the number of pending
cases in the Supreme Court. This could be attributed to an upsurge of filed cases from 38
cases recorded in the FY 2016/17 to 61 cases at the end of the period under review. Details
for the growth of pending cases by specific case types for the Supreme Court is expounded
in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Pending Cases by Type, Supreme Court
Case Type FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18
Petitions 27 42 44 40 52
Applications 17 14 18 29 40
Advisory opinions 2 4 6 4 3
All case types 46 60 68 73 95
From Table 2.6, petitions were the bulk of pending cases at 52 followed by applications at 40
while advisory opinions were 3 at the end of FY 2017/18. The trend for the specific case types
compared across the years covered in Table 2.4with no significant deviation.
2.2.3 Case Backlog at Supreme Court
At the end of the FY 2017/18, there were 44 backlog cases in the Supreme Court. These
cases are detailed in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7: Case backlog by age for Supreme Court, 30th June 2018.
Case Type FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 % Change in Backlog

1 – 3 Years 36 38 6%
3 – 5 Years 22 6 -73%
Over 5 Years 0 0 N/A
All Backlog 58 44 -24%
The Supreme Court reduced its case backlog by 24 per cent from 58 cases at the end of the
2016/17 FY to 44 cases at the end of 2017/18 FY. Out of the 44 cases, 38 were aged between 1
and 3 years while the remaining 6 were aged between 3 and 5 years. There was a 73 per cent
reduction in case backlog by Supreme Court for cases aged between 3 and 5 years between
the FYs 2016/17 and 2017/18.
2.3 Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal (CoA) is established under Article 164 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya
and administered under the COA (Organization and Administration) Act of 2015. The
jurisdiction of the Court is provided under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap. 9) while its
practice and procedure rules are regulated by the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. Currently,
there are 4 Court of Appeal stations namely Kisumu, Malindi, Nairobi and Nyeri.
2.3.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Court of Appeal

In the FY 2017/18, a total of 2,013 cases were filed in the CoA. During the same period, 1,195
cases were resolved. Out of the 2013 cases that were filed, 485 cases were criminal in nature
while 1,528 were civil in nature. Further, out of 1,195 cases that were resolved, 166 cases were
criminal in nature while 1,029 were civil in nature. Figure 2.8 highlights the trend for filed
and resolved cases in the CoA since 2013/14 FY.
Figure 2.8: Filed and resolved cases by broad case type for CoA, 2013/14 - 2017/18
In general, the number of filed and resolved cases have been increasing over the years for
the COA. Detailed analysis on filed and resolved cases in COA stations is provided in Table
2.8.
Table 2.8: Filed and Resolved Cases by COA station and broad case types
COA 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
CR CV CR CV CR CV
FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC
Kisumu 205 111 180 165 98 36 147 90 201 31 165 111
Malindi 46 90 213 145 94 47 178 138 48 34 237 124
Nairobi 173 45 274 309 122 60 621 557 118 58 767 613
Nyeri 111 106 172 86 31 59 287 65 118 43 359 181
All 535 352 839 705 345 202 1,233 850 485 166 1,528 1,029
From Table 2.8, the bulk of the cases were filed in Nairobi COA followed by Nyeri COA. On
resolved cases, Nairobi COA had the bulk at 658 cases. The filed cases by specific case types
are detailed in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9: Filed cases by type and COA station, FY 2017/18

COA Criminal Criminal All Civil Civil All Civil All cases
station Appeal Application Criminal Appeal Application Cases
Cases
Kisumu 199 2 201 105 60 165 366
Malindi 48 0 48 150 87 237 285
Nairobi 109 9 118 460 307 767 885
Nyeri 105 13 118 207 152 359 477
All 461 24 485 922 606 1528 2013
Table 2.9 shows that civil appeals were the bulk of the filed civil cases at 922 in the entire COA
followed by civil applications at 606 cases. For criminal cases, appeals were the majority
filed cases at 461. The resolved cases by specific case types are detailed in Table 2.10.
Table 2.10: Resolved cases by type and COA station, FY 2017/18

COA Criminal Criminal All Civil Civil All Civil All cases
station Appeal Application Criminal Appeal Application Cases
Cases
Kisumu 30 1 31 73 38 111 142
Malindi 34 0 34 98 26 124 158
Nairobi 54 4 58 459 154 613 671
Nyeri 43 0 43 104 77 181 224
All 161 5 166 734 295 1,029 1,195
Table 2.10 shows that Civil appeals were the bulk of the resolved civil cases at 734 followed
by civil applications at 295. Criminal Appeals comprised the majority of resolved criminal
cases at 161 in the FY 2017/18.
2.3.2 Pending Cases in the COA
There were 4,205 pending cases in COA at the close of 2017/18 FY. The growth in pending
cases in COA by broad case type for the past three years is highlighted in Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9: Pending cases by type for COA, FY 2015/16 – FY 2017/18

From Figure 2.9, pending cases in COA increased by 24 per cent from 3,387 cases recorded
at the end of 2016/17 FY to 4205 cases recorded at the end of 2017/18 FY. The percentage
pending cases by COA station at the end of the FY 2017/18 is summarized in Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10: Percentage pending cases by COA stations
Most of the pending cases in the COA were in the Nairobi COA at 54.8 per cent followed by
Kisumu at 18.6 per cent. Malindi COA station had the least pending cases at 10.8 per cent.
Details on pending cases by broad case type and COA stations are given in Table 2.11.
Table 2.11: Pending cases by type and COA station, 2017/18

Criminal
Criminal
Criminal
Pending
All Civil
Appeal
Appeal
Cases
Cases
Total
Civil
Civil
All
Kisumu 476 4 480 242 62 304 784

Malindi 176 1 177 175 103 278 455
Nairobi 571 5 576 1,392 338 1,730 2,306
Nyeri 138 22 160 300 200 500 660
All Stations 1,361 32 1,393 2,109 703 2,812 4,205
As evidenced in Table 2.11, majority of pending cases were civil in nature at 67 per cent. A
total of 1,361 criminal appeals were pending in all COA stations by the end of review period.
Nairobi COA had the highest number of pending cases at 2,306 while Malindi had the least
at 455 cases.
2.3.3 Case Backlog in COA.
Out of the 4,205 pending cases in the COA, 2,582 were backlog. Figure 2.11 gives the case
backlog in the COA by age.
Figure 2.11: Case Backlog by age in COA, 2016/17
At the end of review period, most backlog cases were aged between 1 and 3 years at 48 per
cent where 730 cases were aged 5 years and above representing 25.5 per cent of the total
case backlog. The case backlog by age for different COA stations is detailed in Table 2.12.
Table 2.12: Case backlog by age and COA station, 30th June 2018.
COA station 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years Over 5 years All Ages

Kisumu 325 130 0 455
Malindi 140 45 15 200
Nairobi 704 423 592 1719
Nyeri 208 157 123 488
All stations 1,377 755 730 2,862
From Table 2.12, Nairobi COA station had the highest case backlog at the end of the review
period at 1,719 cases while Malindi had the least at 200 cases. The percentage distribution
of case backlog by COA stations at the end of the review period is presented in Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.12: Percentage distribution of Case Backlog in COA, FY 2017/18.
From Figure 2.12, the Malindi COA had the least backlog cases at 7 per cent followed by
Kisumu at 16 per cent. Nairobi had the highest share of case backlog at 60 per cent.
2.3.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in COA
At the end of review period,the COA had 730 cases of the five years and above. Details on
these cases are elaborated in Table 2.13.
Table 2.13: SJT Implementation status on reduction of case backlog.
COA SJT target on Resolved backlog Case backlog 5 % reduction in case

station reduction of case cases 5 years and years and above backlog 5 years and
backlog 5 years and above (1st Jan 2017 as at 30th June, above between 1st
above as at 1st Jan and 30th June 2018 Jan 2017 and 30th
2017 2018) June 2018
Kisumu 11 20 0 -100%
Malindi 12 11 15 25%
Nairobi 619 202 592 -4%
Nyeri 6 61 123 1,950%
All 648 294 730 13%
From Table 2.13, Kisumu finalized all its case backlog of over 5 years in age. Nairobi COA
station reduced its backlog aged of over 5 years by 4 per cent.
2.4 High Court.
The High Court of Kenya is established pursuant to Article 165 of the Constitution of Kenya
and is administered and organized under the High Court (Organization and Administration)
Act No. 27 of 2015. The court enjoys unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal and civil
matters, as well as on constitutional matters relating to rights and fundamental freedoms. In
addition, the court has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and
tribunals.
2.4.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in High Court
In the FY 2017/18, a total of 25,049 cases were filed in all High Court stations. This comprised
11,898 criminal cases and 13,151 civil cases. In the same period, 37,682 cases were resolved
which comprised 8,179 criminal cases and 29,503 civil cases. The distribution of filed and
resolved criminal cases by case type are summarized in Figure 2.13.
Filed Criminal Cases Resolved Criminal Cases
Figure 2.13: Percentage distribution of filed and resolved criminal cases by type in High Court,
FY 2017/18.
Criminal revisions comprised 42.3 per cent of filed criminal cases while murder cases were
the least filed at 16.1 per cent. On resolved cases, criminal revisions were the majority at 39
per cent with murder cases taking the least percentage at 12.2 per cent. The distribution of
filed and resolved civil cases is given in Figure 2.14.
Filed Civil Cases Resolved Civil Cases
Figure 2.14: Percentage Distribution of filed and resolved civil cases in the High Court, 2017/18
From Figure 2.14, miscellaneous civil cases were the majority filed cases at 24.3 per cent
followed by Probate and Administration cases at 16.5 per cent. Income Tax appeals were the
least filed cases at 0.1 per cent. On resolved cases, Probate and Administration cases had the
highest share at 51.3 per cent while Income Tax appeals had the least at 0.1 per cent. Details
on filed and resolved cases for individual High court stations and broad case type are given
in Table 2.14.
Table 2.14: Filed and Resolved cases by broad case type, High Court
High Court Station Filed cases 2017/18 Resolved cases 2017/18
Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All
Bomet 87 92 179 38 81 119
Bungoma 108 184 292 310 111 421
Busia 96 126 222 291 102 393
Chuka 78 75 153 139 77 216
Eldoret 394 210 604 304 389 693
Embu 230 439 669 78 271 349
Garissa 237 91 328 177 71 248
Garsen 13 3 16 18 6 24
Homabay 222 88 310 206 277 483
Kabarnet 222 40 262 206 9 215
Kajiado 103 126 229 109 74 183
Kakamega 345 45 390 158 279 437
Kapenguria 57 14 71 93 38 131
Kericho 271 74 345 132 353 485
Kerugoya 133 124 257 105 107 212
Kiambu 785 780 1,565 530 309 839
Kisii 476 234 710 439 1,210 1,649
Kisumu 349 640 989 233 1,738 1,971
Kitale 1,010 85 1,095 355 77 432
Kitui 184 184 368 45 137 182
Lodwar 27 10 37 13 7 20
Machakos 549 932 1,481 135 715 850
Makueni 237 197 434 195 276 471
Malindi 132 260 392 107 305 412
Marsabit 54 46 100 47 36 83
Meru 1,146 471 1,617 648 1,621 2,269
Migori 178 494 672 144 608 752
Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 33 0 33 36 0 36
Milimani Civil Div. 0 223 223 0 2,635 2,635
Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 1,144 1,144 0 1,228 1,228
Milimani Const. Div. 1 537 538 0 371 371
Milimani Criminal Div. 1,384 0 1,384 859 0 859
Milimani Family Div. 0 1,810 1,810 0 10,903 10,903
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 3 686 689 0 496 496
Mombasa 767 1,209 1,976 296 2,571 2,867
Muranga 285 343 628 192 453 645
High Court Station Filed cases 2017/18 Resolved cases 2017/18
Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All
Naivasha 101 184 285 83 98 181
Nakuru 232 386 618 324 919 1,243
Nanyuki 264 60 324 216 45 261
Narok 53 21 74 61 13 74
Nyamira 93 28 121 81 24 105
Nyandarua 261 167 428 147 72 219
Nyeri 219 206 425 211 296 507
Siaya 347 50 397 221 34 255
Voi 132 33 165 197 61 258
All Courts 11,898 13,151 25,049 8,179 29,503 37,682
Out of the 25,049 cases that were filed in all High courts, Mombasa station recorded the
highest number at 1,976 followed by Milimani Family Division where 1,810 cases filed.
Milimani Anti-Corruption Division recorded the least number of filed cases at 33 followed
by Lodwar station where 37 cases were filed. Out of the 37,632 cases that were resolved
by all High courts, Milimani Family Division recorded the highest number at 10,903 cases
followed by Mombasa High court where 2,867 cases were resolved. The huge resolution of
cases at Family Division was attributed to continuous case backlog reduction exercises over
the review period. Details on filed and resolved cases for all High court stations by specific
case types are provided in the appendices.
2.4.2 Pending Cases in High Court
At the end the FY 2017/18, there were 97,327 pending cases in the High Court. These
comprised 20,329 criminal cases and 76,998 civil cases. The trend in pending cases in the
High Court for the last five years is shown in Figure 2.15.
Figure 2.15: Pending cases in High Court, FY 2013/14 – FY 2017/18
The overall pending cases in the High Court show a declining trend. However, pending
criminal cases rose 17.93% from 17,238 cases recorded at the end of 2013/14 cases to
20,329 cases at the end of the current reporting period. The trend line for civil cases
mimics that for the overall pending cases. The percentage pending cases by specific case
types for the High Court is shown in Figure 2.16.
Pending Civil Cases Pending Criminal Cases
Figure 2.16: Percentage distribution of pending cases in High Court, FY 2017/18
From Figure 2.16, probate and administration cases comprised the bulk of pending civil
cases in all High Court stations at 40.5 per cent followed by civil applications at 14.7 per
cent. For criminal matters, murder cases were the bulk of pending cases at 36.2 per cent
which suggests that murder cases are having the longest time to disposition. Table 2.15 gives
information on pending cases in all High Court stations at the end of the FY 2017/18.
Table 2.15: Pending cases by broad case type, High Court
High Court Station Criminal Civil All
Bomet 128 285 413
Bungoma 452 2,523 2,975
Busia 154 1,800 1,954
Chuka 34 629 663
Eldoret 1,616 2,990 4,606
Embu 512 2,516 3,028
Garissa 333 251 584
Garsen 52 75 127
Homabay 140 712 852
Kabarnet 163 35 198
Kajiado 92 130 222
Kakamega 796 3,988 4,784
Kapenguria 29 11 40
Kericho 337 1,723 2,060
Kerugoya 165 2,276 2,441
Kiambu 382 549 931
Kisii 495 1,135 1,630
Kisumu 401 1,352 1,753
Kitale 1,136 994 2,130
Kitui 268 244 512
Lodwar 24 6 30
Machakos 538 3,126 3,664
Makueni 70 45 115
Malindi 111 758 869
Marsabit 23 31 54
Meru 1,255 2,951 4,206
Migori 156 653 809
Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 44 0 44
Milimani Civil Div. 0 6,464 6,464
Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 5,705 5,705
Milimani Const. Div. 0 1,030 1,030
Milimani Criminal Div. 3,694 0 3,694
Milimani Family Div. 0 7,112 7,112
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 1,174 1,174
Mombasa 1,961 9,539 11,500
Muranga 892 2,415 3,307
Naivasha 310 620 930
Nakuru 1,475 7,473 8,948
Nanyuki 525 94 619
Narok 64 72 136
Nyamira 125 402 527
Nyandarua 131 123 254
Nyeri 462 2,593 3,055
Siaya 569 211 780
Voi 215 183 398
All Courts 20,329 76,998 97,327
From Table 2.12, Mombasa High Court had the highest number of pending cases at 11,500
followed by Nakuru High Court at 8,948 cases. Lodwar High court had the least pending
cases which stood at 30 cases followed by Kapenguria High Court at 40 cases. Information on
pending cases by specific case types for all High Court stations is provided in the appendices.
2.4.3 Case Backlog in High Court.
Out of the 97,327 pending cases in the High Court, 76,208 cases were backlog. Figure 2.17
summarizes the case backlog in High Court by age.
Figure 2.17: Case backlog in the High Court, end of 2017/18
Out of the 76,208 backlog cases, 33,380 cases were aged between 1 to 3 years, 20,605
cases were aged between 3 and 5 years while 22,223 cases were above 5 years in age. The
distribution of case backlog across the High Court stations is presented in Table 2.16.
Table 2.16: Case backlog by age for High Court, 30th June 2018.
High Court Station 1-3 years 3 - 5 years Over 5 years All
Bomet 181 96 2 279
Bungoma 374 920 1,530 2,824
Busia 411 690 768 1,869
Chuka 521 - - 521
Eldoret 1,659 1,419 1,295 4,373
Embu 742 637 278 1,657
Garissa 361 128 84 573
Garsen 84 26 9 119
Homabay 242 223 111 576
Kabarnet 155 - - 155
Kajiado 79 - 1 80
Kakamega 647 1,982 1,919 4,548
Kapenguria 21 - - 21
Kericho 330 404 1,015 1,749
Kerugoya 598 1,015 637 2,250
Kiambu 613 - - 613
Kisii 853 234 157 1,244
Kisumu 359 84 322 765
Kitale 855 399 453 1,707
Kitui 284 - - 284
Lodwar 9 1 - 10
Machakos 845 846 272 1,963
Makueni 2 1 - 3
Malindi 325 127 87 539
Marsabit 6 - - 6
Meru 1,046 474 209 1,729
Migori 210 92 293 595
Milimani Anticorruption & Econ. Crimes Division 22 - - 22
Milimani Civil Division 2,302 1,768 1,950 6,020
Milimani Commercial & Admiralty Division 1,174 1,395 2,178 4,747
Milimani Con. Law & Human Rights Division 470 138 11 619
Milimani Criminal Division 1,606 476 176 2,258
Milimani Family Division 1,785 620 3,097 5,502
Milimani Judicial Review Division 424 91 111 626
Mombasa 7,054 1,516 987 9,557
Muranga 1,037 1,138 737 2,912
Naivasha 437 234 2 673
Nakuru 3,109 2,402 1,835 7,446
Nanyuki 390 49 14 453
Narok 54 24 - 78
Nyamira 207 159 79 445
Nyandarua 27 - 151 178
Nyeri 569 729 1,353 2,651
Siaya 596 - - 596
Voi 305 68 - 373
All stations 33,380 20,605 22,223 76,208
Mombasa High Court had the highest number of case backlog which stood at 9,557 cases
followed by Nakuru High Court at 7,446 cases.
2.4.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in High Court
Since January 2017, High Court reduced case backlog aged 5 years and above by 62 per cent.
Detailed information on this reduction per station is given in Table 2.17.
Table 2.17: SJT Implementation Status on reduction of case backlog
High Court Station SJT target on Case backlog Resolved backlog % reduction
reduction of 5 years and cases 5 years and in case
case backlog 5 above as at above (1st January backlog 5
years and above 30th June 2018 17 to 30th June years and
(1st Jan 17) 2018) above
Bomet 2 2 - 0%
Bungoma 1,664 1,530 267 -8%
Busia 728 768 112 5%
Chuka - - 26 N/A
Eldoret 1,404 1,295 396 -8%
Embu 1,295 278 156 -79%
Garissa 109 84 61 -23%
Garsen 6 9 2 50%
Homabay 345 111 24 -68%
Kabarnet - - - N/A
Kajiado 7 1 - -86%
Kakamega 1,739 1,919 205 10%
Kapenguria 1 - 1 -100%
Kericho 1,232 1,015 304 -18%
Kerugoya 355 637 80 79%
Kiambu - - - N/A
Kisii 634 157 816 -100%
Kisumu 1,193 322 840 -73%
Kitale 1,381 453 985 -67%
Kitui - - 8 N/A
Lodwar - - - N/A
Machakos 5,480 272 1,039 -95%
Makueni - 16 N/A
Malindi 160 87 175 -46%
Marsabit - - - N/A
Meru 2,415 209 1,442 -91%
Migori 304 293 62 -4%
Milimani Anti-corr. Div. - - 2 N/A
Milimani Civil Div. 9,071 1,950 2,262 -79%
Milimani C. & Tax Div. 2,747 2,178 849 -21%
Milimani Const. Div. 28 11 47 -61%
Milimani Crim Div. 867 176 416 -80%
Milimani Fam Div. 15,593 3,097 9,368 -80%
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 119 111 66 -7%
Mombasa 2,480 987 3,422 -60%
High Court Station SJT target on Case backlog Resolved backlog % reduction
reduction of 5 years and cases 5 years and in case
case backlog 5 above as at above (1st January backlog 5
years and above 30th June 2018 17 to 30th June years and
(1st Jan 17) 2018) above
Muranga 161 737 154 358%
Naivasha - 2 - 100%
Nakuru 3,631 1,935 680 -20%
Nanyuki 11 14 - 27%
Narok - - - N/A
Nyamira 17 79 1 365%
Nyandarua 151 - N/A
Nyeri 3,307 1,353 635 -59%
Siaya - - - N/A
Voi 1 - 2 -100%
All Courts 58,487 22,223 24,921 -62%
2.5 Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC).
The ELRC is established pursuant to Article 162(2) of the Constitution and administerd under
the Employment and Labour Relations Court, Act No. 20 of 2011. It has jurisdiction over
employment and labour disputes. There are six ELRC stations in Kenya located at Nairobi,
Kericho, Kisumu, Mombasa, Nakuru and Nyeri. In addition to the six stations, ELRC has
sub-registries in Meru, Bungoma, Eldoret, Malindi, Machakos and Garissa.
2.5.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in ELRC.
During the reporting period, 5,645 cases were filed while 3,661 cases were resolved. Figure
2.18 gives the trend for the filed and resolved cases by ELRC station.
Figure 2.18: Filed and resolved cases by ELRC station
During the period under review, a total of 5,645 cases were filed in all ELRC stations, down
from 6,082 cases that were filed in the previous period. The court resolved a total of 3,661
cases down from 3,668 cases that finalized in the FY 2016/17. The trend for filed and resolved
cases over the past four FYs for ELRC stations is given in Table 2.18.
Table 2.18: Trend on filed and resolved cases by ELRC station, FY 2014/15 – FY 2017/18
ELRC Station 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

FC RC FC RC FC RC FC RC
Kericho 206 13 225 75 116 105 124 180
Kisumu 330 51 476 56 499 179 581 227
Mombasa 878 276 700 249 1,045 646 861 455
Nairobi 3,184 1,428 3,160 1,518 3,631 1,980 3,114 2,324
Nakuru 737 228 463 231 391 285 360 182
Nyeri 216 160 305 274 400 473 605 293
All ELRC 5,551 2,156 5,329 2,403 6,082 3,668 5,645 3,661
Table 2.14 shows that the resolved cases by the ELRC has been generally increasing over
time. In FY 2015/16, 2,156 cases were resolved which increased to 3,661 in the FY 2017/18.
Information on filed and resolved cases by case type is illustrated in Figure 2.19.
% Filed cases, ELRC % Resolved cases, ELRC
Figure 2.19: Percentage Distribution of Filed and Resolved Cases in ELRC, FY 2017/18
In the FY 2017/18, cause disputes were the bulk of filed and resolved cases in ELRC while
ELRC reviews were the least. Information on filed and resolved case types is given in Table
2.19 and 2.20 respectively.
Table 2.19: Filed cases by type and ELRC station, FY 2017/18
ELRC CBAs Causes ELRC ELRC ELRC ELRC All

Station Disputes Petition Misc.. Appeal Review Cases
Kericho 0 85 14 2 17 6 124
Kisumu 0 451 68 28 27 7 581
Mombasa 4 791 5 54 5 2 861
Nairobi 533 2,262 109 157 12 41 3,114
Nakuru 0 325 7 6 21 1 360
Nyeri 0 555 10 34 5 1 605
All stations 537 4,469 213 281 87 58 5,645
Table 2.20: Resolved cases by type and ELRC station, FY 2017/18
ELRC CBAs Causes ELRC ELRC ELRC Appeal ELRC Review All Cases
Station Disputes Petition Misc.
Kericho 0 150 12 1 13 4 180
Kisumu 0 210 9 5 3 0 227
Mombasa 1 436 5 5 8 0 455
Nairobi 525 1,671 66 33 6 23 2,324
Nakuru 0 154 11 5 11 1 182
Nyeri 0 270 11 8 2 2 293
All stations 526 2,891 114 57 43 30 3,661
Majority of the filed and resolved cases were recorded in Nairobi ELRC station followed by
Mombasa ELRC. The least number of filed and resolved cases were recorded in Kericho ELRC.
2.5.2 Pending Cases in ELRC.
As at 30th June 2018, 15,733 cases were pending in ELRC up from 13,723 cases that were
recorded at the end of 2015/16 FY indicating a 15 per cent rise. The trajectory of pending
ELRC cases for the past 5 years is demonstrated in Figure 2.20.
Figure 2.20: Trend on pending cases in ELRC court, FY 2013/14 – FY 2017/18
Pending ELRC cases gradually rose from 5,849 cases recorded at the end of 2013/14 FY to
15,733 cases that were recorded at the end of 2017/18 FY. Details on the growth of pending
cases by ERLC station are provided in Table 2.21.
Table 2.21: Trend on pending cases by ELRC Station, FY 2015/16 – FY 2017/18
Court Name 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Kericho 299 310 254
Kisumu 862 1,182 1,544
Mombasa 1,418 1,817 2,233
Nairobi 7,416 9,067 9,857
Nakuru 1,046 1,152 1,338
Nyeri 268 195 507
All ELRC Stations 11,309 13,723 15,733
Nairobi and Mombasa ELRC have over the years had the largest number of filed cases. In
2017/18, the least pending cases were recorded in Kericho and Nyeri ELRC stations. The
number pending cases for ERLC by case type are highlighted in Figure 2.21.
Figure 2.22: Distribution of pending cases in ELRC, 30th June 2018
From Figure 2.21, cause disputes constituted the bulk of the pending cases in the ELRC
followed by miscellaneous cases and petitions. The annual pending cases in ERLC station
by case type are provided in Table 2.22.
Table 2.22: Pending cases by type and ELRC Station, 30th June 2018.
ELRC Station CBAs Causes ELRC ELRC ELRC ELRC All Cases
Disputes Petition Misc. Appeal Review
Kericho 0 242 4 1 5 2 254
Kisumu 0 1,334 109 57 27 17 1,544
Mombasa 3 2,105 23 88 12 2 2,233
Nairobi 8 9,320 226 224 47 32 9,857
Nakuru 0 1,294 4 23 16 1 1,338
Nyeri 0 445 16 35 8 3 507
All stations 11 14,740 382 428 115 57 15,733
% Distribution 0.1% 94% 2% 3% 1% 0.4% 100%
Cause disputes constituted 94 per cent of pending ELRC cases followed by ELRC miscellaneous
cases at 3 per cent. The remaining case types accounted for the remaining 3 per cent.
2.5.3 Case Backlog in ELRC.
Out of the 15,733 pending cases in ELRC, 11,143 (71%) cases were backlog. Figure 2.22
shows the age and percentage of case backlog in ELRC.
Figure 2.22: % Case Backlog, ELRC
As illustrated in Figure 2.22, 73 per cent of case backlog was aged between 1 and 3 years, 21
per cent between 3 and 5 years and 6 per cent were above 5 years. Case backlog for ELRC
stations as at 30th June 2018 is given in Table 2.23.
Table 2.23: Case backlog by age and ELRC station, 30th June 2018.
Court Name 1 - 3 Years 3 - 5 Years Over 5 years All Backlog

Kericho ELRC 59 108 0 167
Kisumu ELRC 710 221 72 1,003
Mombasa ELRC 1,125 250 21 1,396
Nairobi ELRC 5,433 1,333 651 7,417
Nakuru ELRC 592 388 10 990
Nyeri ELRC 160 10 0 170
All ELRC stations 8,079 2,310 754 11,143
Nairobi ELRC had the highest case backlog at 7,417 followed by Mombasa at 1,396 cases.
The least backlog was recorded in Kericho ELRC at 167.
2.5.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in ELRC
The ELRC managed to reduce case backlog aged 5 years and above by 5 per cent from 771
cases recorded at the onset on SJT strategy to 754 cases at the end of 2017/18 FY. Table 2.24
provides detailed information for each ELRC station.
Table 2.24: SJT Implementation Status on reduction of case backlog.

ELRC SJT target on reduction Resolved backlog Case backlog % change in case
Station of case backlog 5 years cases 5 years and 5 years and backlog 5 years and
and above (1st Jan 17) above (1st Jan 17 - above 30 June, above (1st Jan 17 30th
30th Jun 18) 18 Jun 18)
Kericho 0 0 0 N/A
Kisumu 43 26 72 67%
Mombasa 1 14 21 2000%
Nairobi 717 908 651 -9%
Nakuru 10 1 10 0%
Nyeri 0 7 0 N/A
All cases 771 956 754 -2%
Nairobi ELRC had the highest reduction of 9 per cent.
2.6 The Environment and Land Court (ELC)
The ELC is established pursuant to Article 162 (2) of the Constitution. The ELC Court is
administered under the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011. The court enjoys
the same status as the High Court and has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine
environment and land related disputes as determined by the Act..
2.6.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in ELC.
During FY 2017/18, a total of 5,834 cases were filed in all ELC stations while 7,887 cases were
resolved. Information on filed and resolved cases in ELC for the past four FYs is given in
Figure 2.23.
Figure 2.23: Trend on filed and resolved cases in ELC, FY 2014/15 – FY 2017/18.
During the period under reference, a total of 7,887 were resolved in ELC courts up from
6,307 cases that were resolved in the previous period. Save for the FY 2016/17, the total
filed cases in ELC averaged at 5,571 cases for the 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2017/18 FYs. Detailed
statistics on filed and resolved cases for all ELC stations over the past 4 FYs is given in Table
2.25.
Table 2.25: Filed and resolved cases in ELC, FY 2014/15-FY 2017/18
ELC Station 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Bungoma 180 57 112 144 263 436 107 195
Busia 47 104 144 14 267 209 140 65
Chuka - - - - 464 78 85 311
Eldoret 113 190 521 68 473 234 232 270
Embu 341 5 130 9 54 15 282 136
Garissa - - - - 62 32 68 24
Kajiado - - - - 201 18 88 177
Kakamega 544 41 262 10 117 16 294 600
Kericho 23 93 332 10 116 38 84 360
Kerugoya 85 62 875 217 308 190 125 154
Kisii 264 76 601 462 563 975 212 223
Kisumu 109 35 174 33 483 422 154 626
Kitale 65 32 193 98 388 307 89 175
Machakos - - - - 149 1,502 374 526
Makueni - - - - 327 2 92 167
Malindi 227 151 295 170 552 292 278 240
Meru 80 102 155 50 512 322 233 694
Migori - - - - 793 7 190 164
Milimani 1,788 2,340 1,437 141 936 428 991 963
Mombasa 305 66 408 250 445 474 494 521
Muranga - - - - 145 14 185 204
Nakuru 161 17 191 31 199 10 259 226
Narok - - - - 526 28 85 76
Nyandarua - - - - 418 22 107 59
Nyeri 592 20 329 129 318 220 163 587
Thika - - - - 691 16 423 144
All stations 4,924 3,391 6,159 1,836 9,770 6,307 5,834 7,887
-ELC station was not operational by then
During the period under review, Milimani ELC had the highest number of filed and resolved
cases. Overall, ELC registered a case clearance rate of 135 per cent. Detailed statistics on
types of cases that were filed and resolved in all ELC stations during the period under review
are given in Table 2.26.
Table 2.26: Filed and resolved cases by type and ELC station, FY 2017/18
ELC Station ELC matters ELC Misc. ELC Appeals All Case Types
Bungoma 95 146 10 38 2 11 107 195
Busia 127 52 13 13 0 0 140 65
Chuka 74 220 7 15 4 76 85 311
Eldoret 216 256 15 5 1 9 232 270
Embu 240 123 32 6 10 7 282 136
Garissa 60 20 5 1 3 3 68 24
Kajiado 77 157 11 20 0 0 88 177
Kakamega 214 520 20 23 60 57 294 600
Kericho 76 348 6 11 2 1 84 360
Kerugoya 102 133 11 4 12 17 125 154
Kisii 191 186 13 25 8 12 212 223
Kisumu 131 568 10 49 13 9 154 626
Kitale 85 168 4 7 0 0 89 175
Machakos 303 464 41 34 30 28 374 526
Makueni 78 138 5 25 9 4 92 167
Malindi 261 192 16 32 1 16 278 240
Meru 172 432 22 62 39 200 233 694
Migori 170 129 16 32 4 3 190 164
Milimani 816 832 121 100 54 31 991 963
Mombasa 437 479 37 28 20 14 494 521
Muranga 163 192 8 9 14 3 185 204
Nakuru 252 217 6 7 1 2 259 226
Narok 78 72 2 1 5 3 85 76
Nyandarua 100 46 1 1 6 12 107 59
Nyeri 132 546 21 16 10 25 163 587
Thika 377 129 30 15 16 0 423 144
All Courts 5,027 6,765 483 579 324 543 5,834 7,887
From Table 2.21, ELC matters were the bulk of filed and resolved cases followed by ELC
miscellaneous cases. The least filed and resolved cases were ELC appeals.
2.6.2 Pending Cases in ELC.
As at 30th June 2018, there were 20,211 pending cases in the ELC court. Figure 2.24 gives the
change in pending cases in ELC over the past four years.
Figure 2.24: Growth of pending cases in ELC, FY 2013/14 to FY 2017/18
Between FY 2016/17 and 2017/18, there was a 7 per cent drop of pending cases from 27,242
pending cases to 24,380 pending cases. This is attributed to the case clearance rate of 135 per
cent that was achieved during the period under review thereby guaranteeing non-increase
in pendency of cases. The percentage pending cases by type for ELC as at 30th June 2018 is
given in Figure
Figure 2.25: Percentage distribution of pending cases by type in ELC, FY2017/18

Out of all pending cases, 89 per cent comprised ELC matters followed by miscellaneous
matters at 7 per cent while appeals were the least at 4 percent. The number of pending cases
for the ELC stations is given in Table 2.27.
Table 2.27: Pending cases by type in ELC, FY 2017/18
ELC Station Pending cases as @ Pending cases as at 30th June 2018

30 June 2017
th
ELC matters ELC Misc. ELC Appeals All case
types
Bungoma 851 621 98 16 735
Busia 504 518 14 10 542
Chuka 386 182 3 76 261
Eldoret 2,132 1888 42 47 1977
Embu 702 646 23 2 671
Garissa 30 57 11 4 72
Kajiado 183 18 13 2 33
Kakamega 809 412 5 6 423
Kericho 648 373 4 2 379
Kerugoya 968 644 96 154 894
Kisii 1,969 1582 148 129 1859
Kisumu 2,247 1411 44 45 1500
Kitale 900 810 0 4 814
Machakos* 442 965 84 43 1092
Makueni 325 171 16 6 193
Malindi 1,148 1071 16 9 1096
Meru 583 319 109 174 602
Migori 786 411 4 3 418
Milimani 4,833 3954 570 90 4614
Mombasa 1,936 1441 390 58 1889
Muranga 131 308 4 19 331
Nakuru 1,862 1681 3 1 1685
Narok 498 237 5 3 245
Nyandarua 396 361 9 2 372
Nyeri 1,298 763 30 25 818
Thika 675 820 27 18 865
All cases 27,242 21,664 1,768 948 24,380
2.6.3 Case Backlog in ELC.
The case backlog in ELC stood at 20,867 cases at the end of the 2017/18 FY. The distribution
of these cases by age is given in Figure 2.18.
Figure 2.26: Percentage distribution of case backlog in ELC, 2017/18.
Most of the backlog cases were aged between 1 and 3 years at 8,802 cases. A total of 5,314
cases were over 5 years in age. The distribution of the case backlog by age in ELC stations is
given in Table 2.28.
Table 2.28: Case backlog by age for ELC, 30th June 2018.
ELC Station 1-3 years 3-5 years Over 5 years All backlog
Bungoma 106 230 318 654
Busia 220 194 2 416
Chuka 208 0 0 208
Eldoret 575 677 558 1810
Embu 272 301 5 578
Garissa 14 0 0 14
Kajiado 21 5 3 29
Kakamega 43 140 171 354
Kericho 201 12 114 327
Kerugoya 477 285 101 863
Kisii 532 542 656 1730
Kisumu 572 432 438 1442
Kitale 433 176 128 737
Machakos 390 171 220 781
Makueni 96 4 11 111
Malindi 657 157 126 940
Meru 165 195 144 504
Migori 189 41 6 236
Milimani 1,499 1,800 832 4131
Mombasa 557 292 600 1449
Muranga 120 80 63 263
Nakuru 270 554 622 1446
Narok 181 14 7 202
Nyandarua 250 104 98 452
Nyeri 348 304 74 726
Thika 406 41 17 464
All courts 8,802 6,751 5,314 20,867
Form Table 2.23, the ELC courts that had the highest number of backlog cases were Milimani,
Eldoret, Eldoret and Kisii. Garissa and Kajiado had the least case backlog.
2.6.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in ELC
On reduction of case backlog of above 5 years in age, a total of 5,314 backlog cases older than 5 years
have been resolved between January 2017 and June 2018. Detailed information on resolution of
backlog cases older than five years is given in Table 2.29.
Table 2.29: Distribution of case backlog by age for ELC, 30th June 2018.
ELC Station SJT target on reduction of Resolved backlog cases 5 Case backlog 5 years
case backlog 5 years and years and above between 1st and above as at 31st
above as at 1st Jan 2017 Jan 2017 and 30th June 2018 June, 2018
Bungoma 372 203 318
Busia 34 43 2
Chuka 0 170 0
Eldoret 611 176 558
Embu 11 26 5
Garissa 0 29 0
Kajiado 0 2 3
Kakamega 67 148 171
Kericho 199 143 114
Kerugoya 55 60 101
Kisii 150 366 656
Kisumu 144 188 438
Kitale 208 133 128
Machakos 0 961 220
Makueni 0 3 11
Malindi 158 180 126
Meru 145 673 144
Migori 0 24 6
Milimani 988 559 832
Mombasa 452 537 600
Muranga 0 0 63
Nakuru 547 75 622
Narok 0 0 7
Nyandarua 0 0 98
Nyeri 5 33 74
Thika 0 24 17
All Courts 4,146 4,756 5,314
The rise in case backlog depicted in Table 2.24 could be attributed to case transfers from
High courts to ELC stations.
2.7 Magistrate Court
Magistrate’s courts are established pursuant to Article 169 of the Constitution of Kenya,
2010. The Magistrates Courts Act, Act No. 26 of 2015 provides the general jurisdiction and
administration of the Court. There were 123 magistrate court stations during the period
under reference.
2.7.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Magistrates Courts
During the FY 2017/18, a total of 356,085 cases were filed in magistrate’s court while 313,362
cases were resolved. Statistics on Filed and Resolved cases in the magistrate court for the
last five FYs is highlighted in Figure 2.19.
Figure 2.27: Trend on filed and resolved cases in Magistrate Court, FY 2013/14 -FY 2017/18
During the FY 2017/18, there was a 18 per cent increase in filed cases in magistrate court as
compared to the previous reporting period. The total resolved cases increased by 20 per cent
from the previous period. The percentage filed and resolved cases in magistrates’ courts is
given in Figures 2.28 and 2.29.
Criminal Cases Filed Criminal Cases Resolved
Figure 2.28: Percentage filed and resolved criminal cases in Magistrate Court, FY 2017/18
Filed Civil Cases Resolved Civil Cases
General Criminal General Criminal

Matters Matters
Figure 2.29: Percentage filed and resolved civil cases in Magistrate Court, FY 2017/18
From Figure 2.28, General criminal matters comprised the bulk of the filed and resolved
cases at 64 and 63 per cent respectively. Inquest were the least filed and resolved criminal
cases at 0.1 and 0.3 per cent respectively. From figure 2.29, Genenral civil matters were the
most filed and resolved cases at 68 and 70 per cent respectively. Divorce and separation
matters were the least filed and resolved civil cases at 1 and 3 per cent respectively. Detailed
information on filed and resolved cases by case type and magistrate court station is provided
in the appendices.
2.7.2 Pending Cases in Magistrate Court
At the end of the FY 2017/18, there were 407,631 pending cases in magistrate court comprising
197,964 criminal cases and 209,667 civil cases. The change in pending cases in magistrates’
court for the last five years is highlighted in Figure 2.20.
Figure 2.30: Trend on pending cases in Magistrate Court, FY 2013/14- FY 2017/18
There was a 11 per cent increase in pending cases between 2016/17 FY and 2017/18 FY. The
percentage pending criminal and civil cases by type is given in Figure 2.31.
Pending Criminal Cases Pending Civil Cases
Figure 2.31: Percentage Pending Criminal and Civil Cases, Magistrate Court
From Figure 2.31, majority of pending criminal cases were general criminal matters at 65 per
cent followed by traffic cases at 24 per cent. Inquest were the least pending criminal cases
at 1 per cent. General Civil matters were the highest pending civil cases accounting for 75
per cent of total pending civil matters. Detailed statistics on pending cases for all magistrate
court stations and case type have been provided in the appendices.
2.7.3 Case Backlog in Magistrate Court.
Out of the 407,631 pending cases in Magistrates’ Court, a total of 260,653 cases were backlog.
The distribution of case backlog in Magistrate Court is illustrated in Figure 2.32.
Figure 2.32: Distribution of case backlog by age in Magistrate Court, 30th June 2018
A total of 152,935 cases were aged between 1 and 3 years, 54,244 cases between 3 and 5
years while 53,474 cases were over 5 years in age. Detailed statistics on case backlog for
all magistrate court stations and on backlog reduction under SJT Have been given in the
appendices.
2.8 Kadhis’ Courts
Kadhis’ Courts are established under Article 170 of the constitution. It has limited jurisdiction
to determine cases relating to personal status, marriage, divorce and inheritance in
proceedings where both parties are profess islam.
2.8.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in Kadhi’s court.
During the period under review, a total of 7,556 cases were filed in Kadhis’ court while 6,662
were resolved. Figure 2.23 shows the number of filed and resolved cases for the last five FYs.
Figure 2.33: Trend on filed and resolved cases in Kadhis’ Court, FY 2013/14 -FY 2017/18
The filed matters in the Kadhis’ court has been increasing over time as shown by the
uppermost curve in Figure 2.33. The court has also been able to respond to the increasing
demand for justice by resolving cases at an increasing rate, though slightly less than those
filed. Table 2.30 gives statistics on filed and resolved cases in Kadhis’ court stations for the
period under review.
Table 2.30: Filed and resolved cases by Kadhis’ court station, FY 2017/18
Court Name Filed cases Resolved cases
Balambala 43 38
Bungoma 40 29
Busia 42 39
Bute 52 43
Daadab 110 149
Eldas 31 13
Eldoret 54 48
Elwak 149 148
Faza Island 81 72
Garbatulla 80 70
Garissa 465 391
Garsen 68 30
Habaswein 14 11
Hamisi 58 54
Hola 62 61
Homabay 34 27
Ijara 91 93
Isiolo 163 180
Kajiado 45 44
Kakamega 34 25
Kakuma 31 16
Kericho 84 76
Kibera 36 45
Kilifi 99 81
Kisumu 174 178
Kitui 29 31
Kwale 333 345
Lamu 133 140
Machakos 51 25
Malindi 148 136
Mandera 103 91
Mariakani 95 61
Marsabit 104 47
Maua 15 10
Merti 83 49
Migori 12 4
Mombasa 1,554 1,364
Moyale 103 122
Mpeketoni 42 34
Msambweni 80 70
Muranga 20 2
Mwingi 19 19
Nairobi 1,757 1,504
Nakuru 88 73
Nyeri 59 33
Takaba 141 132
Thika 23 19
Voi 29 29
Wajir 395 361
All courts 7,556 6,662
The highest number of filed and resolved cases in Kadhis’ court were recorded in Nairobi
and Mombasa stations. Overall, the Kadhis’ court achieved a case clearance rate of 88 per
cent.
2.8.2 Pending Cases in Kadhis’ Court
At the end of the FY 2017/18, the pending cases in the Kadhis’ court were 3,816 cases. The
trend on pendency of cases at Kadhi court is highlighted in Table 2.31.
Table 2.32: Trend in Pending Cases in Kadhi Courts for the Period 2013/14 – 2017/18
Station 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Balambala - - - 4 5
Bungoma 28 25 38 3 14
Busia - - - 13 16
Bute - - 32 1 9
Dadaab - - 102 157 118
Eldas - - - 32 50
Eldoret - - 55 5 6
Elwak - - - 15 1
Faza - - - 8 17
Garbatulla - - - 14 31
Garissa - - 252 206 280
Garsen 31 40 67 73 111
Habaswein - - 23 57 60
Hamisi - - - 45 49
Hola 28 50 54 33 7
Homabay - - 28 43 50
Ijara - - 20 28 26
Isiolo 29 29 138 54 33
Kajiado 8 8 5 15 16
Kakamega - 0 32 127 136
Kakuma - 0 140 10 25
Kericho - - 26 11 8
Kibera - 0 39 27 18
Kilifi 22 26 23 10 28
Kisumu - - 55 102 34
Kitale 12 13 2 - -
Kitui - 7 5 9 4
Kwale 312 434 154 52 40
Lamu 79 90 120 34 8
Machakos 3 10 14 7 33
Makindu - 321 - - 0
Malindi 107 104 126 80 36
Mandera 68 73 117 110 122
Mariakani - - 15 3 37
Marsabit 121 121 96 21 78
Maua - - - 2 7
Merti - - - 3 37
Migori - 12 6 7 15
Mombasa 1,246 1,106 894 1,081 1,271
Moyale 61 61 48 86 67
Mpeketoni - - - 4 12
Msambweni - - - 30 40
Murang’a 1 1 6 15 33
Mwingi - - - 8 8
Station 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Nairobi 185 219 192 57 663
Nakuru - - 41 152 12
Nyeri 20 20 25 9 35
Takaba - - - 13 9
Thika 5 6 2 3 7
Voi 6 12 51 5 5
Wajir 4 4 213 131 165
Total 2,376 2,792 3,256 3,015 3,816
2.8.3 Case Backlog in Kadhis’ Court
At the end of the period under reference, case backlog at the Kadhis’ court stood at 1,137
cases up from 1008 cases that were recorded at the end of the previous reporting period.
Information on case backlog by age for the Kadhis’ court stations is elaborated in Table
2.33.
Table 2.33: Trend in Pending Cases in Kadhi Courts for the Period 2013/14 – 2017/18
Court Name 1-3 years 3-5 years Over 5 years All backlog
Balambala 1 0 0 1
Bungoma 2 0 0 2
Busia 5 0 0 5
Bute 1 0 0 1
Daadab 34 0 0 34
Eldas 31 0 0 31
Eldoret 2 0 0 2
Elwak 0 0 0 0
Faza Island 0 0 0 0
Garbatulla 8 0 0 8
Garissa 81 0 0 81
Garsen 67 0 0 67
Habaswein 21 0 0 21
Hamisi 44 0 0 44
Hola 1 0 0 1
Homabay 17 0 0 17
Ijara 1 0 0 1
Isiolo 10 0 0 10
Kajiado 5 0 0 5
Kakamega 73 0 0 73
Kakuma 7 0 0 7
Kericho 2 0 0 2
Kibera 0 0 0 0
Kilifi 8 0 0 8
Kisumu 34 0 0 34
Kitui 1 0 0 1
Kwale 12 0 0 12
Lamu 1 0 0 1
Machakos 4 0 0 4
Malindi 10 0 0 10
Mandera 104 0 0 104
Court Name 1-3 years 3-5 years Over 5 years All backlog
Mariakani 2 0 0 2
Marsabit 20 0 0 20
Maua 1 0 0 1
Merti 2 0 0 2
Migori 6 0 0 6
Mombasa 386 0 0 386
Moyale 2 0 0 2
Mpeketoni 1 0 0 1
Msambweni 9 0 0 9
Muranga 6 0 0 6
Mwingi 3 0 0 3
Nairobi 53 0 0 53
Nakuru 3 0 0 3
Nyeri 8 0 0 8
Takaba 3 0 0 3
Thika 3 0 0 3
Voi 1 0 0 1
Wajir 55 0 0 55
All courts 1,151 0 0 1,151
PART II:
ACCESS TO JUSTICE: STRATEGIC INITIATIVES TO
IMPROVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Judiciary has continued to adopt a strategic approach to enhance access to justice. Drawing
from the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (2017-2021): A Service Delivery Agenda policy
document and the Judiciary Strategic Plan (SP) (2014-2018), diverse strategic initiatives were
prioritized to reduce barriers to justice and hence enhance access to justice for Kenyans.
This section provides information on the achievements that were realized in the FY 2017/18
on enhancement of access to justice, out of these strategic efforts and initiatives.
1. Reduction of Case Backlog

In Kenyan Judiciary, a case is classified as backlog if it remains unresolved for over one year
since its date of filing. Therefore, case backlog depicts an accumulation of unresolved cases
over time thus pointing to existence of inefficiencies in the justice chain. It is an undesirable
phenomenon that has prompted the Kenyan Judiciary to earmark its reduction as a focal
area in its strategic agenda. To reduce case backlog, finalization of cases that had remained
unresolved for over 5 years since the date they were filed in court was made a deliberate
target under the SJT strategy. During the period under review, all courts undertook diverse
initiatives aimed at reducing case backlog. The efforts by courts yielded a 51 per cent
decrease in case backlog of over 5 years from 170,186 cases at the beginning of SJT blueprint
to 83,468 cases by end of June 2018. It is envisaged that more reduction in case backlog will
be realized during the FY 2018/19.
2. Digitization of Judiciary Processes
Across the world, judicial systems are continuously harnessing technology in court and
registry operations to realize high efficiency levels and to create linkages with litigants,
lawyers, government agencies and other court users. The SJT earmarks improvement in
Information Communication Technology (ICT) as an enabler of dispensation of justice. The
Judiciary ICT masterplan spells out areas for digitization that are expected to revolutionize
service delivery by courts, directories and registries. Consequently, Judiciary embarked on
technological path aimed at supporting the broad mandate of dispensation of justice and
access to justice. During the period under review, great strides were made on the use of case
tracking system (CTS) for automation of registry processes, court recording transcription
system (CRTS) for digitization of court proceeding, E-filing for digitization of court files,
enterprise resource planning (ERP) for supporting admistrative functions, and provision
of internet to courts to ease communication across court stations and with external
stakeholders. The CTS had been rolled out in 24 stations at the end of the FY with more
courts expected to be connected to the platform in the next reporting period. The CRTS was
piloted in Supreme Court, COA Nairobi and Milimani Commercial Division.
3. Enhancement of Judiciary Human Resource Capacity
The quantity and quality of labour in public organizations such as Judiciary is of paramount
importance for realization of high efficiency levels in provision of public good. The Kenyan
Judiciary thrives in an environment where its key output, the dispensation of justice, is
heavily reliant on quantity and quality of its labour force comprising judges, judicial officers
and staff. An appropriate mix of this labour force coupled with optimal physical infrastructure
of courts drives the performance of courts in improving access to justice. To enhance access
to justice, deliberate efforts to improve the quality and capacity of judiciary employees
through training was undertaken. A total of 130 magistrates were trained on continuous
judicial education (CJE), 400 Judiciary staff were trained on customer care, communication
and integrity, 450 magistrates were trained on management in civil matters, 70 judges and
90 magistrates trained on transcription, 70 Judges, 95 Magistrates and 40 Deputy Registrars
were trained on handling of elections disputes. The key areas of training included making
justice pro-poor, dealing with prose litigants, active case management, bail and bond
among others. Its envisaged that the execution and use of knowledge and skills learnt will
impact on service delivery rendering justice more accessible to Kenyans. More information
on enhancement of human resource capacity is given in Chapter 5.
4. Development of Court Infrastructure
Enhancement of access to justice in Kenya requires physical infrastructure in form of court

buildings with enough court rooms, registries, chambers and offices. The spread of courts
across geographical areas is equally important in making justice more accessible to Kenyans
through the reduction of physical barriers to court users in accessing court services. To
ensure that Judiciary maintains a positive trajectory on growth and development of courts,
construction and refurbishments of courts was undertaken. During the period under review,
at total of 66 courts were undergoing construction. Out of these, 8 courts were completed.
For the completed courts, 2 of them had been funded through JPIP and 6 through GOK. For
the 62 courts that were undergoing construction at the end of FY 2017/18, 36 of them were
under GOK funding while 26 were under JPIP funding. The total contract sum for all the
ongoing constructions at the end of the period under review was Ksh. 9.8 billion. Detailed
analysis on the courts constructions that were undertaken is provided in Chapter 7 of the
report.
5. Implementation of Performance Management and Measurement
Performance management and measurement continues to be institutionalized in the

Judiciary with focusing on Courts, Directorates, Registries and Judiciary semi-autonomous
agencies. The ultimate objective of performance management is to support dispensation and
access to justice through performance measurement and evaluation. The institutionalization
cuts across all courts and administrative units in the Judiciary, with the scope covering the
entire Judiciary mandate as explicated in SJT and SP. Access to justice is a broad performance
indicator for all courts comprising numerous sub-indicators that aim at ensuring that justice
is dispensed expeditiously and made more accessible. The key performance indicators that
laid emphasis on access to justice were enhanced case clearance rate, reduced case backlog,
resolved cases within set timelines, timely delivery of judgments and improved courts’
productivity. During the period under review, performance of courts and administrative
units was assessed against the targets that had been set on these indicators in the previous
period. The evaluation report was launched in April 2018. In the FY 2017/18, a total of 257
implementing units signed performance management and measurement understanding
(PMMU) obligating them to work towards the realization of desirable results that would
consequently enhance access to justice. The performance report for the period under review
will be finalized and launched during the next reporting period.
6. Entrenchment of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
During the period under review, Judiciary enhanced access to justice by upscaling the use of
Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) process. Court Annexed Mediation, which had only been
in operation at Milimani High Court Family and Commercial Divisions the previous year,
was extended to cover Milimani Civil Division, Milimani ELRC, Milimani ELC, Milimani
Chief Magistrate Court and Milimani Childrens Court. In the FY 2017/18, 117 mediators
were acredited bringing the total number of mediators to 229. In the FY 2017/18, a total
of 705 matters, with a monetary value of 20.8 billion, were referred to mediation hence
enhancing access to justice. Out of the 705 matters, 404 matters were concluded while
in the remaining 176 matters, parties failed to reach an agreement. Out of the concluded
matters, 228 matters had settlement agreements with a monetary value of 2.6 billion. In the
228 matters with settlement agreements, full settlements were 181, partial settlements were
20 while settlements via consent were 2. Overall, CAM matters were finalized within an
average of 90 days. This range was low in comparison with the average time to disposition of
673 days for cases that went through the normal court process. This affirmed that CAM was
efficient in the disposal of cases leading to enhanced access to justice.
Chapter 3
ACCESS TO JUSTICE - TRIBUNALS
INFRASTRUCTURE
3.0 Introduction
Article 1(3) (c) of the Constitution recognizes the Judiciary and independent tribunals as
State organs to which sovereign power is delegated by the people of Kenya. According to
Article 159 (1) of the Constitution, judicial authority vests in and is to be exercised by courts
and tribunals established by or under the Constitution. The Constitution of Kenya requires
the Judiciary to undertake effective measures that enhance access to justice for the people
of Kenya. In this regard, the Judiciary has over the last six years been implementing major
transformation initiatives geared towards enhancing the delivery of justice among them
transitioning of tribunals into the Judiciary. Tribunals are established by different Acts
of Parliament and are mandated to resolve disputes in a fast, simple and speedy manner.
Article 169 (1) of the Constitution defines subordinate courts under the Judiciary to include
local tribunals as may be established by an Act of Parliament.
Under the constitutional framework, tribunals are part of the Judiciary and therefore
critical players in the justice system. This is a departure from the previous constitutional
regime in which tribunals operated under their respective line ministries. The purpose of
transitioning tribunals is to ensure they are delinked from the executive and integrated in
the court system. The Judiciary, upon full transition shall therefore, have an obligation to
manage tribunals including their staff in order to effectively and efficiently render services
to users.
There are about 60 tribunals in Kenya. Five tribunal transited to the Judiciary during the
reporting period bringing the cumulative figure of those transited by the National Treasury
to 20 as tabulated in table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1: Trend on transition of tribunals to the Judiciary
FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

1. Political Parties Disputes Tribunal 1. Competition 1. Competent
(PPDT) Tribunal Authority
2. Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) 2. Public-Private 2. Legal Education
3. National Environment Tribunal (NET) Partnership Petition Appeals Tribunal
4. HIV and AIDS Tribunal Committee (PPPPC) 3. Communications and
5. Education Appeals Tribunal 3. Transport Appeals Multi Media Appeals
6. Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) Licensing Board Tribunal
7. The Standards Tribunal (TLAB) 4. Micro and Small
8. Industrial Property Tribunal 4. State Corporations Enterprises Tribunal
9. Cooperative Tribunal Appeals Tribunal 5. National Civil
10. Energy Tribunal (SCAT) Aviation Appeals
11.Rent Restriction Tribunal (RRT) Tribunal
The Communications and Multi Media Tribunal, the Micro & Small Enterprises Tribunal,
and the National Civil Aviation were among those transitioned into the Judiciary during the
reporting period; however, their development budgets remained with the line Ministries.
3.1 Tribunals under the Judiciary
3.1.1 Industrial Property Tribunal
It is a specialized court for resolution of disputes in different areas of intellectual property

which include: patents, industrial designs, utility models, technovations and semi-
conductor technologies. The Tribunal is established under the Industrial Property Act, 2001
and comprises a Chairperson and four members who hear and determine matters filed at
the Tribunal. Administrative functions of the tribunal are undertaken by the Tribunal’s
Secretary.
The Tribunal has both original and appellate jurisdiction and thus receives applications on
infringement of industrial property rights, applications on validity of such rights as well as
applications for determination of rights transferred or to be transferred through licensing or
other similar agreements or through government intervention.
The Tribunal‘s appellate jurisdiction involves hearing appeals from the decisions taken by
different agencies responsible for the administration of industrial property rights such as
Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), the Minister responsible for matters relating to
industry as well as the relevant Arbitration Board under the Act. The Tribunal’s mandate also
involves advising government ministries and departments on exploitation of intellectual
property in specified circumstances under the Act.
3.1.2 Political Parties Disputes Tribunal
It is established under Section 39(1), of the Political Parties Act 2011 Laws of Kenya. It resolves
disputes between members of a political party, member of a political party and a political
party, among political parties, an independent candidate and a political party and among
coalition parties and also hears appeals from decisions of the Registrar of Political Parties
under the Act. The tribunal’s members are appointed by the Judicial Service Commission
(JSC)and consist of: a chairperson who should be a person qualified for appointment as a
judge of the High Court and six other members, three of whom should be advocates of the
High Court of at least seven years standing. The Chairperson and members serve on part-
time basis for a non-renewable term of six years. The Tribunal had six members in the year
2017/18.
3.1.3 Energy Tribunal
It is established under Section 108 of the Energy Act, Cap 314 Laws of Kenya. Its mandate
is to hear and determine appeals from decisions of the Energy Regulatory Commission.
Under this Act, the Tribunal may, on its own motion or upon application by an aggrieved
party review its judgments and orders. The tribunal consists of the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson, both appointed by the President and three members appointed by the Cabinet
Secretary. The tribunal is fully constituted with 4 members sitting.
3.1.4 State Corporations Appeals Tribunal
It is established under Section 22 of the State Corporation Act Chapter 446, Laws of Kenya.
It is tasked to handle matters involving any person who is aggrieved by a disallowance
or surcharge by the Inspector-General of State Corporations, and to remit the case to the
Inspector-General with such directions as the Tribunal thinks fit for giving effect to the
decision on appeal. The tribunal consists of a Chairperson appointed by the President,
two (2) members appointed by the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary appointed by the
Attorney General. No case has been registered since 2013 because it relies on the Inspector
of State Corporations to forward disputes, and it has not received any.
3.1.5 Legal Education Appeals Tribunal
It is established under Section 29(1) of the Legal Education Act No.27 of 2012 to determine
appeals made in writing by any party or a reference made to it by the Council (of legal
education) or by any committee or officer of the Council, on any matter relating to the
Act. The tribunal has all powers of the High Court to summon witness, take evidence on
oath or affirmation and to call for the production of documents. The tribunal consists of a
Chairperson, one advocate, three persons who have demonstrated competence in the field
of legal education and a Registrar. The tribunal had five members and a Registrar but had not
registered any case during the period under review.
3.1.6 Standards Tribunal
It is established under Section 16A of the Standards Act Cap 496 Law of Kenya to hear and
determine appeals from a decision of the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) or the Council.
Upon an appeal under the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, set aside or vary the decision or act
in question and may make such other order as the Tribunal considers appropriate, including
an order with respect to the payment of costs. The tribunal consists of a Chairperson,
four members and a Secretary. During the period under review, the Tribunal was fully
constituted.
3.1.7 Competition Tribunal
It is established under Section 71 of the Competition Act No. 12 of 2010 Laws of Kenya to hear
and determine appeals against decisions made by the Competition Authority. Further, the
Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Authority’s decision and determination in relation to
a proposed merger. The Tribunal consists of the Chairperson and not less than two and not
more than four other members. The Tribunal had three members and registered one case in
the year 2017/18.
3.1.8 Competent Authority
It is established under the Copyright Act Cap 130 (Revised 2009). According to the Act,
the “Competent Authority” should have not more than three persons appointed by the
Attorney-General for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under the Act, whenever any
matter requires to be determined by it. The Tribunal had four members appointed in the
month of February 2018. The Authority has not had any case.
3.1.9 HIV and AIDS Tribunal
It is established under Section 25 the HIV Prevention and Control Act No 14 of 2006 [Rev.
2012] The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 26 to hear and determine complaints
arising out of any breach of the provisions of this Act; to hear and determine any matter or
appeal as may be made to it pursuant to the provisions of this Act; and to perform such other
functions as may be conferred upon it by this Act or by any other written law being. The
jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal excludes criminal jurisdiction. The Tribunal can
award costs as per Section 27 (which are enforced by the High Court). The tribunal consist
of seven members appointed by the Attorney-General under Section 25(1) and serve for a
term of three years. The quorum for a meeting of the Tribunal is five, the chair and four other
members.
3.1.10 Rent Restriction Tribunal
It is established under Section 4 of the Rent Restriction Act Cap 296 of the Laws of Kenya.
The mandate of the tribunal includes making provisions for regulating the increase of rent,
the right to possession, the exaction of premiums and fixing standards rents in relation
to controlled premises and for other purposes incidental or connected thereto, with the
relationship of a landlord and tenant of a dwelling house. Its headquarters is in Nairobi with
ten regional offices based in Mombasa, Kisumu, Nakuru, Nyeri, Kakamega, Eldoret, Embu,
Lamu and Garissa. The Tribunal consists of the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and a panel of
members who are appointed by the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban
Development. The Tribunal had a total of 10 members during the year FY 2017/18.
3.1.11 Cooperative Tribunal
It is established under Section 77 of the Cooperative Societies Act No.490 (Revised in 2012),
Laws of Kenya. The mandate of the Tribunal is to resolve disputes among members of
cooperative societies, past members and persons claiming through members, past members
and deceased members; or between members, past members or deceased members and the
society, its committee or any officer of the society; or between the society and any other
co-operative society. The tribunal consists of the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and four
members who are appointed by the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Industrialization and
Enterprise Development.
3.1.12 Business Premises Rent Tribunal
It is established under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering
Establishments) Act, Chapter 301, Laws of Kenya. Its mandate is to determine disputes
between landlords and tenants in business premises within the limits set out in the Act.
The Tribunal consists of persons appointed by the Minister. The Tribunal has powers to
determine a range of issues such as whether or not any tenancy is a controlled tenancy and
determine or vary the rent to be payable in respect of any controlled tenancy. Under Section
11 of the Act, The Tribunal consists of a person or persons (number not specified) appointed
by the Cabinet Secretary.
3.1.13 National Environment Tribunal
It is established under Section 125 of the Environmental Management and Coordination

Act (EMCA) of 1999 and comprises a chairperson nominated by the JSC, and four members
appointed by the Cabinet Secretary responsible for environmental matters. Appeals to the
Tribunal are by any person who is aggrieved by a refusal to grant a license or to the transfer
of his license under the Act or regulations, the imposition of any condition, limitation or
restriction on his license under the Act or regulations, the revocation, suspension or variation
of his license under the Act or regulations, the amount of money which he is required to
pay as a fee under the Act or regulations made thereunder, the imposition against him of
an environmental restoration order or environmental improvement order by the Authority
under the Act or regulations. The Tribunal has four board members. During the period
under review, the tribunal elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson on 31st May, 2018;
refurbished tribunal offices and held training of the Chairperson in Sweden and training of
staff in Arusha and Kisumu.
3.1.14 Micro & Small Enterprises Tribunal
It is established under Section 54 of the Micro and Small Enterprises Act, 2012 Laws of
Kenya. The Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson are nominated by JSC but appointed by the
Cabinet Secretary and five members also appointed by the Cabinet Secretary. The Tribunal
has jurisdiction to determine any dispute concerning the micro and small enterprise arising
(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members
of associations and or administrators of estate of deceased members of the associations;
(b) between members, past members or administrators of estate of deceased members of
the association, and the Micro and Small Enterprises Authority, or any of their officers or
members; (c) between the Authority and an association. The Tribunal has not registered
any case and does not have secretariat staff. During the reporting period, the Tribunal’s
key achievements were: appointment of the Chairperson and the Law Society of Kenya
representative; finalization of the Service Delivery Charter and preparation of draft
regulations.
3.1.15 Communication and Multi Media Appeals Tribunal
It is established under Section 102(1) of the Kenya Information and Communication

(Amendment) Act 2013 for the purpose of arbitrating in cases where disputes arise between
the parties under the Act and such matters as may be referred to it by the Minister. The
Tribunal consists of: a Chairperson who should be a person who holds or has held a judicial
office in Kenya or who is an advocate of not less than seven years standing and entitled to
practice before any of the courts of Kenya; and two other members who should possess
expert knowledge of the matters likely to come before the Tribunal and who are not in the
employment of the Government or the Corporation and two other members who shall be
nominated by the Media Council established under the Media Act, 2007 (No. 3 of 2007), and
appointed by the Minister. The chairman and other members of the Tribunal are appointed
by the Minister in consultation with the Attorney-General. The tribunal has not registered
a case since its establishment.
3.1.16 National Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal
It is established under Section 66 of the Civil Aviation Act No.21 of 2013 (Revised in 2014).
The Tribunal consists of the Chairperson, a Deputy Registrar and four other persons with
management and technical experience of not less than ten years in the field of civil aviation.
The Chairperson of the Tribunal is appointed by the JSC. The Cabinet Secretary, through
a competitive process, selects three and eight suitable nominees for the positions of a
chairperson and members respectively, and forwards their names to the JSC for appointment.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to hear and determine complaints or appeals arising from:
any refusal to grant a license, a certificate or any other authorization by the Kenya Civil
Aviation Authority or transfer of a license under the Act or regulations No. 21 of 2013 Civil
Aviation [Rev. 2014] [Issue 3] C16A – 40, the imposition of any condition, limitation or
restriction on a license under the Act or regulations, any revocation, suspension or variation
of a license, any amount of money which is required to be paid as a fee, the imposition of
any order or direction by the Authority, consumer protection compliance and enforcement
of activities related to areas such as right violations, unfair and deceptive practices and
unfair competition by air carriers and travel agents, deceptive airline advertising including
fare, on-time performance, schedule, code sharing, and violations of rules concerning
denied boarding compensation, ticket refunds, baggage liability requirements, flight delays
and charter flights or any exercise of powers to make decisions, but not powers in respect
of staff employment, granted to the Director-General or the Authority under this Act or
regulations. The Tribunal registered and determined one case in the year 2017/18.
3.1.17 Education Appeals Tribunal
It is established under Section 93 of Basic Education Act No. 14 of 2013 (Revised 2017). The
Tribunal handles complaints from those dissatisfied with decisions made by educational
institutions. It listens to petitions from teachers, students, parents, ministry staff,
proprietors, sponsors, boards of management and school management committees. The
Tribunal consists of the Chairperson and four members who are mandated to hear and
resolve disputes brought before it. The Tribunal is chaired by a chairperson who is appointed
by the Education Cabinet Secretary and has all the powers of the High Court to summon
witnesses, to take evidence on oath or affirmation and to call for the production of books and
other documents. During the review period, the tribunal members had not been gazetted.
According to the Basic Education Act, the Board members are drawn from the following
offices: The Director General, Chief Executive Officer Teachers Service Commission, Director
of Quality Assurance and Standards, Chief Executive Officer Kenya Private Sector Alliance
(KEPSA), Office of the Attorney General, and National Council of Nomadic Education in
Kenya, NACONEK.
3.1.18 Sports Disputes Tribunal
It is established under Section 55 of Sports Act No.15 of 2013 Laws of Kenya. The Tribunal
draws its mandate from the Sports Act 2013 and Anti-Doping Act no 5 of 2016. In Sports
related matters, the Tribunal determines:
a) appeals against decisions made by national sports organizations or umbrella national
sports organizations, whose rules specifically allow for appeals to be made to the
Tribunal in relation to that issue including appeals against disciplinary decisions and
appeals against not being selected for a Kenyan team or squad;
b) other sports-related disputes that all parties to the dispute agree to refer to the Tribunal
and that the Tribunal agrees to hear; and
c) appeals from decisions of the Registrar under the Act.
In doping cases, the Tribunal hears and determines all cases on anti-doping rule violations
on the part of athletes and athletes support personnel and matters of compliance of sports
organisations as per the Anti-doping Act. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over national
crimes related to doping. The tribunal consists of nine members including the Chairperson
and had all the members on board during the Financial Year 2017/18. The Tribunal may, in
determining disputes apply alternative dispute resolution methods for sports disputes and
provide expertise and assistance regarding alternative dispute resolution to the parties to a
dispute.
3.1.19 Public Partnership Private Petitions Committee
It is established under Section 4 of the PPPPC Act No. 15 of 2013, (Revised in 2015). It comprises
of a Chairperson and twelve members. Its functions involve overseeing the implementation
of policies formulated, requisition of any information from any party to a project on any
matter relating to a public private partnership and custody of a project agreement made
under the Act, and monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.
The Tribunal had six members and did not register cases in the financial year.
3.1.20 Transport Licensing Appeals Tribunal
It is established under the National Transport and Safety Authority Act No.33 of 2012 (Revised
in 2014) under the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development.
The Tribunal hears appeals against decisions of the NTSA. The appeals board may, on any
appeal affirm or reverse the decision of the Authority, or make such other order as the Board
considers necessary and fit. It also hears appeals filed against any tax decision made by the
Commissioner. The Tribunal consists of five members including the Chairperson.
In the past year, the Board handled diverse cases brought in by individuals, matatu sacco
operators and bus companies. The issues for determination were on the following areas: de-
registration of motor-vehicles from NTSA portal without due process; failure of the NTSA to
give complainants audience; impounding of motor-vehicles, removal of number plates and
removal of the Road Service License (RSL); technical, and long process set by the authority
while seeking license registration of company, sacco, RSL (both short term and normal RSL);
revocation and downgrading of class A driving license to class C; lack of written guidelines
relating to route extension; detention of vehicles and confiscation of driver’s license and
RSL and eventual black listing of vehicle despite driver paying the required court fines; de-
registration of Saccos; intrusion by unregistered operators and failure by NTSA to punish
school buses operating and ferrying passengers other than school students.
3.2 Caseload Statistics for all tribunals.
3.2.1 Filed and resolved cases in tribunals
During the period under review, 5,615 cases were filed while 2,530 cases were resolved.
Details on filed and resolved cases are shown in Table 3.2
Table 3.2: Cases filed and resolved in the tribunals during the FY 2017/2018
Cases filed between Cases resolved between
Name of Tribunal Ist July 2017 and 30th
Ist July 2017 and 30th
June 2018 June 2018
Business Premises Rent Tribunal 569 543
Standards Tribunal 2 2
Cooperative Tribunal 682 410
State Corporations Appeal Tribunal 0 0
Education Tribunal 4 0
Transport Licensing Appeals Board 42 40
Rent Restriction Tribunal 3,620 889
Energy Tribunal 1 0
National Environment Tribunal 18 19
Competition Tribunal 2 0
Public Private Partnership Petition 0 0
Committee
Micro & Small Enterprises Tribunal 0 0
Competent Tribunal 0 0
Sports Tribunal 50 35
HIV & Aids Tribunal 50 9
Industrial Properties Tribunal 5 15
Communication & Multi-Media Appeals 0 0
Tribunal
National Civil Aviation Tribunal 1 0
Legal Education Tribunal 0 0
Political Parties Disputes Tribunal 569 568
All Tribunals 5,615 2,530
Rent Restriction Tribunal had the highest number of filed cases followed by Cooperative
Tribunal and Business Premises Tribunal. Five tribunals were newly transited hence there
were no matters filed in the year under review. The case clearance rate for the period under
review was 45%.
3.2.2 Pending cases in tribunals
During the period under review, 11,100 cases were pending in all tribunals. Details on
pending cases are shown in Table 3.3
Table 3.3: Pending cases in tribunals during the FY 2017/2018
Name of Tribunal Pending Cases as at Pending Cases as at

30th June 2017 30th June 2018
Business Premises Rent Tribunal 3,302 3,328
Standards Tribunal 1 1
Cooperative Tribunal 3,699 3,971
Name of Tribunal Pending Cases as at Pending Cases as at
30th June 2017 30th June 2018
State Corporations Appeal Tribunal N/A 0
Education Tribunal 45 49
Transport Licensing Appeals Board 6 8
Rent Restriction Tribunal 800 3,531
Energy Tribunal N/A 1
National Environment Tribunal 16 15
Competition Tribunal N/A 2
Public Private Partnership Petition N/A 0
Committee
Micro & Small Enterprises tribunal N/A 0
Competent Tribunal N/A 0
Sports Tribunal 75 90
HIV & Aids Tribunal 51 92
Industrial Properties Tribunal 20 10
Communication & Multi-Media Appeals N/A 0
Tribunal
National Civil Aviation Tribunal N/A 1
Legal Education Tribunal N/A 0
Political Parties Disputes Tribunal N/A 1
All Tribunals 8,015 11,100
In the period under review, Cooperative Tribunal had the highest number of pending cases
at 3,917 followed by Rent Restriction Tribunal at 3,531 and Business Premises Rent Tribunal
at 3,328. The percentage pending cases is illustrated in Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1: Percentage pending cases by Tribunal, F/Y 2017/2018
From Figure 3.1, 98% of pending cases were in 3 tribunals namely Cooperative Tribunal,
Rent Restriction Tribunal and Business Premises Tribunal. 11 tribunals shared the remaining
2% of the pending cases while 4 tribunals did not have any pending cases.
3.3 Staff distribution in Tribunals
During the period under review, a total of 197 staff comprising both Ministry and Judicial
employees were working in tribunals. Similarly, there were 89 board members across all
tribunals. Details of staff distribution are indicated in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Staff distribution in tribunals in the FY 2017/18
Name of Tribunal Board Judicial Ministry Total

Members Staff Staff
Business Premises Rent Tribunal 1 4 25 30
Standards Tribunal 5 0 7 12
Cooperative Tribunal 10 7 10 27
State Corporations Appeal Tribunal 0 1 6 7
Education Tribunal 4 1 3 8
Transport Licensing Appeals Board 5 3 4 12
Rent Restriction Tribunal 10 4 59 73
Energy Tribunal 4 0 3 7
National Environment Tribunal 4 3 4 11
Competition Tribunal 3 1 1 5
Public Private Partnership Petition 6 3 3 12
Committee
Micro & Small Enterprises Tribunal 5 0 0 5
Competent Tribunal 4 0 2 6
Sports Tribunal 9 2 5 16
HIV & Aids Tribunal 8 0 21 29
Industrial Properties Tribunal 5 1 4 10
Communication & Multi-Media 5 0 1 6
Appeals Tribunal
National Civil Aviation Review 5 0 1 6
Tribunal
Legal Education Tribunal 5 0 1 6
Political Parties Disputes Tribunal 7 7 0 14
All Tribunals 89 37 160 302
From table 3.4 above, the majority of staff working in tribunals (52%) were employees
seconded from various ministries.
3.4 Tribunal Chairpersons and Locations
Physical access to tribunals is a key component of access to justice. During the period under
review, tribunals were operating from various offices with majority being housed in premises
within their parent ministries. In regard to the leadership of the tribunals, 19 tribunals had
chairpersons while State Corporations Appeals Tribunal did not have a chairperson. Details
of all tribunals’ location and names of the chairpersons are contained in Annexure 3.1.
Key Achievements and Developments in Tribunal Administration in the Financial Year

2017/2018
3.4.1 Induction Training for Tribunals Secretariat Staff
The Judiciary Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual provides that induction and
orientation of newly appointed staff should be conducted within the first three months of
employment. The overall objective of induction is to familiarize the employees with the
mandate, vision, mission and operations of the Judiciary and how their roles aligned to fit in
their respective offices. In this regard, the secretariat staff were taken through an induction
program whose objectives were to enable the participants develop realistic expectations,
reduce uncertainty and ensure that there is some clarity of performance expectation in
addition to equipping them with requisite knowledge, skills and attitude to enable them
quickly settle down and deliver on their duties and responsibilities. The program was
conducted by facilitators drawn from various directorates in the Judiciary and covered to
a large extent the structure of the Judiciary, roles and functions of various directorates and
the functions of the secretariat staff.
3.4.2 Induction Training for New Tribunal Members
During the reporting period, three Tribunals were transited to the Judiciary. An induction
training was conducted targeting 36 participants comprising the Chairpersons, Members,
and Secretaries/CEOs of the following Tribunals: Communications and Multimedia Appeals
Tribunal, Legal Education Appeals Tribunal, Competent Authority, National Civil Aviation
Administrative Review Tribunal, Micro and Small Enterprises Tribunal and Public Private
Partnerships Petition Committee. The trainers comprised internal and external facilitators as
well as Judicial Officers who were carefully selected to share their experiences. The training
program was tailor made to cover important aspects on Judiciary policies, judgement writing,
functions of various directorates and roles and conduct of tribunal boards in dispensation of
justice.
3.4.3 Institutionalizing performance management
Performance management and measurement is an integral part of the judicial systems that
is aimed at ensuring that both individual and team objectives are drawn and aligned to
those of the organization. The Secretariat signed a PMMU for the reporting period to guide
the secretariat in its programs and activities. The targets were drawn from the SJT and the
Judiciary’s Strategic Plan.
3.4.4 Staff Performance Appraisal
Performance Appraisal (PA) is a formal, structured system of measuring and evaluating an

employees’ job, related behavior and outcomes to discover how the employee is presently
performing on the job and how the employee can perform more effectively in the future so
that both the employee and the employer reap the desired benefits. Following the signing
of the PMMU, 13 tribunal staff negotiated targets and signed their performance appraisal
system forms.
3.4.5 Assessment of Tribunal Registries and Records Appraisal
The Tribunals secretariat is committed to enhancing efficiency in service delivery in all

tribunal registries. During the reporting period a comprehensive analysis of registries
and records in Cooperative Tribunal and Rent Restriction Tribunal was conducted. The
activity involved going through all records in the archives and the registries to weed out
expired records, organize and arrange files in the registries, reconstruct case registers and
movement registers, records survey and appraisal to establish cases due for disposal.
Moving forward, it will be very critical to continuously train registry staff on Record and
Registry practices to maintain the structures and standards that have been put in place.
A phased approach has been adopted to appraise other tribunal registries and assist them
align their operations to the Judiciary Registry manuals and eventually adopt Information
Technology in Record Management.
3.4.6 Launch of Service weeks at the Cooperative Tribunal
The SJT places emphasis on clearance of backlog and in adherence to this strategic direction,
the first service week for Tribunals was launched during the reporting period. The launch of
the Cooperative Tribunal Service week provided an avenue for creation of public awareness
about the existence of tribunals and their commitment to not only resolve disputes in a
speedy manner, but to also clear backlog in line with the SJT. The event brought together
internal and external stakeholders and ushered in the disposal of 1,497 cases that had
previously been classified as backlog.
3.4.7 Disposal of Obsolete Records at the Cooperative Tribunal
The disposal of records at the Judiciary is guided by the Public Archives and Documentation
Service Act (CAP 19), The Records Disposal Act (CAP 14) and the Judiciary Records Retention
Disposal Schedules. During the reporting period, the Cooperative Tribunal obtained
authority and disposed off records which were obsolete and due for disposal. This created
space in the Tribunal archives and registries.
3.4.8 Assessment of Staff Working in Tribunals (Staff Mapping)
Usually, tribunals’ staff are seconded from parent ministries while a few clerical officers are
from the Judiciary. In order to establish the actual number of staff deployed to tribunals, a
staff mapping exercise was conducted to establish the number of staff in the twenty (20)
tribunals that have transited to the Judiciary, their designations/cadres, terms and length
of service, identify staffing gaps in tribunals, and provide recommendations on the staffing
needs of the tribunals. This report is instrumental in guiding the staffing decisions
3.4.9 Operationalization of New Tribunals
During the reporting period, the secretariat facilitated swearing in of members of PPPPC,
Legal Education Tribunal, Communication and Multi-Media Appeals Tribunal, Micro
and Small Enterprises Tribunal, Competition Authority and Competition Tribunal. The
secretariat also facilitated their meetings, sittings, workshops, retreats and supported them
with secretariat services.
3.4.10 Development of Service Delivery Charters
The SJT lays emphasis on efficiency in the delivery of services. In this regard, through a
consultative process, nine tribunals and the secretariat developed their service delivery
charters.
3.4 .11 Development of Strategic Plans
In order to cascade Judiciary’s strategic goals, by the close of the reporting period, the
Strategic Plans for Industrial Property Tribunal and Standards Tribunal were in the final
stages while for Cooperative Tribunal and Sports Disputes Tribunals were in draft form.
These are the only your tribunals that had begun the process.
13.4.12 Capacity building retreats
During the reporting period, the under listed activities were undertaken with the aim
of skills and competency development of tribunal members and staff, knowledge and
experience sharing and establishing linkages and partnerships:
- Capacity building training for RRT and Cooperative Tribunals on the organization
of the Judiciary, Judiciary policies and procedures, customer care and the role of
tribunals in delivery of justice;
- study tour by TLAB in Canada on Tribunal Administration, induction of newly
transited Tribunals’ Chairpersons and CEOs/Secretaries; and
- training of all Tribunals on Performance Management and data collection,
management and reporting;
- study tour by JSC to Canada to benchmark and share experiences on running of
tribunals; and
- a joint working retreat for Tribunals’ secretariat and JSC secretariat for peer review
and establishing areas of collaboration and mutual interest.
3.4.13 Public Awareness Initiatives

To increase awareness on tribunals to the public, tribunals organized programs to reach
out to the public and disseminate information on their existence, mandate, locations, rules
and procedures among others. During the period under review, tribunals exhibited for the
first time in the National ASK shows held in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kitale and Nyeri. Similarly
they engaged in activities within their sectors aimed at sensitizing the public as well as
strengthening stakeholder relationships.
3.5 Jurisprudence from Tribunals
IN THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL

AT NAIROBI
IPT CASE NO. 71 OF 2016
Evans Mwene Kereina…………………………………..Requestor

Vs.
Faulu Kenya Limited…….……………………….1st Respondent
Airtel Kenya Limited……….……….…………….2nd Respondent
Safaricom Kenya Limited…………….………….. 3rd Respondent
Ruling
Introduction
The applications by the three respondents, Faulu Kenya Limited, Airtel Kenya Limited and
Safaricom Kenya Limited, though filed separately sought for the Revocation of utility model
No. 106 registered on 12/1/2016 under Registration No. KE/U/2012/258. They are all lodged
against Mwene Kerina. The requestor had sought relief against the alleged infringement
of utility model 106. These applications are brought under Section 103(1) of the Industrial
Property Act.
The issues for determination by the tribunal were:

a. Is what has been registered as utility model 106 a utility model as envisaged by Section.
2 of the Industrial Property Act.
b. Is the requestors innovation new or it is obvious and comprised in the prior art as
contended by the respondents.
c. Should utility model 106 be Revoked
d. Who should bear the cost of the applications for Revocation proceedings.
These Revocation proceedings had been brought under Section 103(1) of the Industrial
Property Act 2001. That section allows an interested person to request the Tribunal Revoke
or Invalidate the patent, Utility Model or Industrial Design registration in proceedings
instituted either by him against the owner of a patent, registered utility model or industrial
design or against him by the owner of a patent registered utility model or industrial design.
The Claimant instituted proceedings against the three Respondents on 18th February, 2016
for relief from alleged infringement of his utility model. The revocation applications in the
present case fall under the second limb of Section 103(1) of the Industrial Property Act.
Arguments
The three applications were canvassed together on 22/3/2018 with Ms. Nganga appearing
for the Requestor and Mr. Njenga, Mr. Sikei and Mr. Gitau appearing for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Respondents respectively.
Analysis and Findings
At the centre of this dispute is the question whether utility model No. 106 should be revoked
or not. The Respondents have urged us to do so primarily on the grounds that it does not
meet the requirements of Section 2, Section 34(1), Section 25, Section 82 and regulation 16
and 17 of the Industrial Property Regulations. In particular that it is not a utility model as
contemplated under Section 2 of the Act, in that it contains mere descriptions of a process
of disbursing loans and is thus not “a form, configuration or disposition of elements of some
appliance or other object or any part of the same….‘’.
The second limb of the challenge on utility model is on the novelty of innovation registered
as utility model 106. The Respondents contends that it is not a utility model properly so called
and is anticipated by prior art. Thus it is not worthy of protection and should be revoked.
The claimant is of a contrary view. He said that the utility model 106 not only fits the statutory
definition of a utility model but is unique to him and was not anticipated by the prior art as
contended by the respondents.
As earlier indicated in this ruling the primary issues for determination are whether the
utility model 106 fits the definition of a utility model as contemplated by section 2 of the
Act, whether utility model 106 is anticipated by prior art or is new, novel and unique to the
claimant. If the utility model 106 does not fit the description of a utility model under the Act
then it is incapable of Registration. So is the case if it is found to be anticipated by prior art
and therefore not new or novel. Under Section 82 of the Act an invention only qualifies for a
utility model certificate if it is new and industrially applicable.
It is a common ground that what the claimant presented for registration and protection as a
Utility Model was a description of a process of acquiring/disbursing loans through a mobile
phone. What is disputed is whether that process constitutes a utility model as envisaged
by a Section 2 of the Industrial Property Act (2001). That section is the interpretation
section of the Act and where material a “utility model” for purposes of the Act means any
form, configuration or disposition of element of some appliance, utensil, tool, instrument,
handcraft, mechanism or other object or any part of the same allowing a better or different
functioning, use or manufacturing of the subject matter or that gives some utility, advantage
, environmental benefits, saving or technical effects not available in Kenya before and
includes microorganisms or other self-replicable material products of generic resources,
herbal as well as nutritional formulations which give new effects.”
From the plain reading of that text, it is clear that a utility model must unlike a patent disclose
more than just a description of a process. This finding alone would suffice to dispose off the
question as to whether E-Moby i.e. Utility model No. 106 is a utility model as contemplated
by the Act. The simple answer is that it is not because the description in the abstract is not a
form, configuration or disposition of elements of some appliance utensil, tool, instrument,
handcraft, mechanism or another object. We are persuaded that a utility model has one
of its characteristics a physical form. Besides a mere presentation of information is not an
invention and is to be excluded from patent protection –( see Section 21(3) d).
The next question is one of newness, novelty and industrial application of utility model 106.
Put differently, is the idea of disbursing loans through a mobile phone platform unique, new
and informal? The claimant contends that it is not under the Act and invention qualities for
utility model certificate are new and industrially applicable (see Sect. 82(1). To qualify as
new, the utility model must not have been available in Kenya before. (See section 2 of the
Act).
Utility model 106 was challenged both on account of newness and industrial applicability.
On newness, the respondent contended that the idea of disbursing loans using a mobile
platform was already in use both in Kenya and abroad. At the international level, the US was
quoted while in the Kenyan context M-Kesho, M-Shwari and Kopa chapa were highlighted
as instances of using the mobile phone platform to disburse loans/credit.
As regards, industrial applicability it was contended that the claimant’s utility model 106
consists of a mere description of information and has not been industrially applied anywhere
as it lacks sufficient details to enable any independent application and performance by a
person skilled in the art. There is no material to show how the claimant’s description in
the abstract could work out in practice. The claimant, in fact, appears to acknowledge that
something more was required to move his idea from an idea to something practical and
implementable.
It would have been necessary to develop software to implement the idea which does not
appear to have been done at the time of registration or at all. The mere description of the
idea and information is thus not sufficient to make it implementable. In addition, the three
Respondents appear to have quite independently of the claimant, rolled out their own
mobile phone loan/credit disbursement platforms.
Jurisdiction to Revoke
Under Section 103(3) of the Industrial Property Act, the Tribunal is clothed with jurisdiction
to revoke or invalidate the registration of a patent, utility model and industrial design
provided that any of the grounds set out thereunder is satisfied. One of those grounds is that
the invention is not new in terms of Section 23 of the Act. Under Section 23(1) an invention
is new if it is not anticipated by prior art. And this includes everything made available to the
public anywhere in the world by means of written or oral disclosure, use of exhibition or
either other non-written means. Such disclosure is to be considered as prior art, so long as
such disclosure occurred before the date of the application.
The question is looked through the lens of this prior art is E Moby whose date of filing
application is said to be 11/1/2012 and date of priority 10/1/2012 new in terms of Section 23
of the Act. We answer the question in the negative for the simple reason that all the claimed
prior art both in Kenya and in the US predate the E-Moby date of application and priority
date.
In the upshot, we find that Utility model 106 was not capable of registration for being merely
a description of information and being anticipated by prior art, which was already in the
public domain both in and elsewhere in the US. Consequently, we find that the applications
for Revocation are merited and are allowed. The Utility model 106 otherwise known as
E-Moby is hereby revoked.
This finding necessarily affects the infringement proceedings instituted by the claimant/
requestor against the three respondents seeking relief for alleged infringement of the utility
model 106. The same are hereby dismissed with the cost to the Respondents.
IN THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2012
ELIZABETH KATISYA…………………………………1ST APPELLANT

CAROLINE KATISYA………………………………… 2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY…………..1ST RESPONDENT
CARNEVAL VILLAGE APARTMENTS………………..2ND RESPONDENT
Judgment of the Majority
1. The appeal herein was filed on 25th September 2012 by Anthony John Dickinson
& Others, by way of Notice of Appeal dated 21st September 2012 against NEMA’s
approval and issuance of an Environmental Impact Assessment License (Registration
No. 0011390) dated 2nd August 2012 permitting the construction of a five (5) storey
residential block for Carneval Village on L.R. No. MN/1/7664 along Tudor Creek in
Mombasa to Coconut Cave Limited. The said Appeal was filed against the Director
General of NEMA and Carneval Village Apartments. The grounds of Appeal were set
out, verbatim, as follows:-
• Limited Space to Build
• Inadequate Parking Space
• Lack of Access
• Non-Compliance with Zoning / Building Regulations
• Air/ Noise/ Water Pollution
• No Riparian Reserve
• Limited Water Supply
• Sewage – Mombasa City has no functional sewage system
2. The Appellant asked the Tribunal to grant the following orders:

a. Cancelation of “the fresh license” that had been issued by NEMA;
b. Stoppage of the Continued Construction;
c. Costs; and
d. NEMA to enforce its own Orders.
Analysis and finding
3. The Tribunal has carefully considered all the issues raised by the Parties and the
evidence tendered by the witnesses during the hearing held on 1st February 2017 and
set out in their pleadings, the documents submitted by the parties and the applicable
law, including the National Environmental Tribunal Procedure Rules, 2003, the
Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA of 2009), the Environmental
(Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003 and of particular significance the
Environmental Management and Coordination (Wetlands Riverbanks, Lakeshores and
Seashores Management) Regulations 2009 which governs developments on the sea
front.
4. The first issues to be determined by the Tribunal are whether the Appellants have
been properly enjoined in this matter and whether the amendment of pleadings was
appropriately done by the Appellants. Rule 16 of this Tribunal’s Rules states as follows:
“If it appears to the Tribunal, whether on the application of a party or on its own motion, that
it is desirable that any person be made a party to the proceedings, the Tribunal may order
such person to be joined as a respondent and may give such directions relating thereto as
may be just, including directions as to the delivery and service of documents.”.
5. The Katisyas’ sought to continue the appeal without making a formal application to
the Tribunal. To avoid dismissing the Appeal summarily, the Katisyas were granted
an opportunity to be enjoined with a timeline of 9th February 2015 clearly set for
compliance.
6. The matter was adjourned on several occasions thereafter after the parties indicated
they were pursuing negotiations. Even after the resumption of the hearing, nothing
more was said by either party about the amendments or the substitution of Appellants
or effect of failure to prosecute the filed application for that purpose. The parties
proceeded on the basis that the appeal had been properly amended and that the
Appellants had been substituted.
7. As earlier stated, the law on amendment of pleadings is clear (Rule 10 (1) of the
National Environmental Tribunal Procedure Rules 2003). Since the hearing had already
commenced, the party seeking the amendment was obliged to seek the Tribunal’s
leave to this effect in terms of Rule 10(2). This was not done. It was important to note
that Caroline Katisya and Elizabeth Katisya were not parties in the proceedings as at
18th December 2014 or at the time of filing her application in January 2015. At that
stage she could not have sought to amend an appeal which did not belong to her.
8. Despite making an application on 26th January 2015 seeking to substitute and amend the
pleadings, the Appellants did not wait for their application to be heard and determined
by the Tribunal. Instead they proceeded on their own accord to file an amended Notice
of Appeal substituting the parties and making substantial amendments including the
introduction of three new grounds of appeal.
9. In this appeal however, the Tribunal considered that the Appellants were joined by
conduct of the parties since the Appellants and Respondents proceeded to hearing on
this basis without any objection being raised.
10. In the interest of justice and fairness to the parties and owing to the time taken since
the appeal was filed the Tribunal overlooked this irregularity.
11. On the initial license dated 5th October 2009 granted by the 1st Respondent to the
2nd Respondent (which was eventually cancelled), no appeal was filed by the 2nd
Respondent. The Tribunal was also not provided with the comprehensive report, nor
the resolutions in MIN. 3/21/10/2011, to show the basis for the initial cancellation,
except for the fact that it was done upon recommendation of the SERC and the reasons
stated in the letter of cancellation.
12. The Appellants nonetheless maintain that by virtue of the cancellation of the previous
license, the 2nd Respondent ought not to have been granted the second EIA license as
there was still in existence failure to rectify irregularities and illegalities, and failure
to consider the Appellants’ complaints during the period the EIA license was being
considered. The letter of cancellation (NEMA/CP/PR/1/1/0041) dated 16th December
2011 states in part as follows:
“ …that you are implementing the project in contravention of condition 6, 12 and 19

of the license and the information or data you gave in support of your application for
an environmental impact assessment license was intended to mislead the Authority
by not clearly indicating the site location…
Based on the SERC resolution MIN. 3/21/10/2011, the Authority hereby cancels the
license for the project NEMA /CP/PR.1/1/0041 with immediate effect.”
13. The 2nd Respondent proceeded to apply for another license for the same project, under
the same project consultant, who also happened to be the developer, one Mr. Josef
Bruhlner, under whose consultation and direction the previous license was cancelled
for providing misleading data.
14. The Tribunal notes that first and second reports prepared by the 2nd Respondent have
not been submitted as evidence. No reports from the architects, the Ministry of Water
and some of the leading agencies were submitted either.
15. The only documents submitted as evidence by the parties include forms of opposition
of the project for the previous license, the cancelled license, ruling delivered in HCCC
No. 9 of 2010, minutes of the public hearing, the advertisement for the second license
and the license itself issued on 2nd August 2012, etc. No reports had been tendered from
the Architects, Lead Agencies and all other relevant institutions necessary for such
projects.
16. The parties however had relied on their documents tendered to present claims and
allegations and similarly to contest and defend the claims, respectively.
17. The 1st Respondent, in its submissions dated 26th November 2014 sought to confirm the
difference in documents, stating that the former license indicated as CP/PR.1/1/0041
was granted at the Project Report stage, while the subject of the current appeal,
was granted after the full EIA study hence the use of initials “EIA”. However, the 1st
Respondent filed a statement taking the strange position of not opposing the appeal
(in essence, disowning its own EIA license) and leaving the decision of whether or not
to cancel the secondary EIA license to the Tribunal.
18. Although the 2nd Respondent’s defence seemed to be premised on the position that it
fully complied with all the necessary requirements, it failed to do so. A careful look at
the second License issued (dated 2nd August 2012), and the conditions stated therein
shows that the 2nd Respondent has disregarded several of the conditions, as below
indicated;
a. General Condition 1.1 states that the Project is for construction of a five storeyed
residential block.
The License allowed for a five storey residential block. The Project which is
currently 70% complete shows that there will be a total of six floors making it a six
storey building. Indeed, even at cross examination the 2nd Respondent’s witness
DW1 stated that the project would have a total of 6 floors, in contravention of the
license.
A look at the minutes of the public hearing also indicates that there is a
contradiction as to what was presented by one Prof. Justice Mwanje on behalf
of the 2nd Respondent with regard to the proposed project, and what was stated
during cross examination of the 2nd Respondent’s witness. During that meeting
Prof. Mwanje made a presentation using a 3D model of the proposed project. The
layout purported to show a three storey construction with 2 floors underneath,
expected to house 33 studios and 5 one bedroom apartments.
However, the Tribunal noted that during cross examination, the witness stated
that the building would have 29 studios and 5 one bedroom apartment, with one
floor yet to be completed, which would total 6 storeys as opposed to the 5 storeys
allowed under the license.
b. General Condition 1.1 states that the proponent shall ensure that records on
conditions of licenses/approvals and project monitoring and evaluation shall be
kept on the project site for inspection by NEMA’s Environmental Inspectors.
During the site visit, members of the Tribunal could not identify any board with
details of the Project on the site. Upon cross examination, DW1 confirmed that
several of the approvals required had also not been obtained. In particular he was
unable to exhibit the approved plans by the County Government of Mombasa.
c. Construction Condition 2.1 states that the Proponent shall scale down the project
to leave out a 60 metre riparian reserve from the highest water mark and
rehabilitate the site to the approval of NEMA.
The Water Resources Management Rules, 2007, Regulation no. 116 (c) states,
“The riparian land adjacent to the ocean is defined as a minimum of two metres vertical
height or 30 metres horizontal distance from the highest water mark.”
However during cross examination, the 2nd Respondent confirmed that the
riparian reserve for the project would be 5 metres from the corner of the building
to the shore. The Tribunal also measured the distance and found it to be 18 metres,
although it was uncertain whether this was the high water mark or if the tide had
receded at the time of the visit.
d. Construction Condition 2.2 states that the proponent shall ensure that the design
drawings of the waste water treatment system are approved by the Mombasa
Water Sewerage Company and the District Public Health Officer and evidence of
the same submitted to NEMA before installation.
In disregard to the above condition, no approvals had been obtained by the 2nd
Respondents. In fact, during the hearing of the appeal the 2nd Respondent’s
witness confirmed that they had not submitted any approved plan for the waste
water treatment plant and its exact location, seeking instead to rely on statements
he made at the hearing.
e. Construction Condition 2.3 states that the proponent shall develop and implement
a traffic management plan, including expansion of the road, to the approval of the
Municipal Engineer, before commencement of the project.
At the hearing of the appeal, no evidence was tendered by the 2nd Respondent
to show a plan in place for the project, nor a Traffic Assessment Report and
proposed mitigation measures, contrary to the above condition. It was also not
clear how the 2nd Respondent, would ever manage to expand the road as privately
developed properties abutted the narrow access road on either side.
f. Construction Condition 2.7 states that the proponent shall put up a signboard
as per the Ministry of Public Works standards indicating the NEMA EIA license
number among other information.
A visit to the site by the Tribunal confirmed that no signboard had been put up to
identify the necessary details for the project.
g. Operational Condition 2.2 states that the proponent shall ensure that all solid waste
is handled in accordance with the Environmental Management and Coordination
(Waste Management) Regulations of 2006.
No evidence was produced of an approved plan forwarded to NEMA for solid
waste management. During cross examination, the 2nd Respondent’s witness,
again relying only on his statements, identified that they intended to install a
bio-digester which would be stationed at the front of the project or the back of
the project.
It is a fact that under the minutes of the public hearing submitted and relied on by
the 2nd Respondent, the Mombasa Sewerage and Water Company had specifically
pointed out concerns with regards to the supernatant that would remain after the
sludge had been removed, but nowhere has the developer addressed the same.
19. The Waste Management Regulations are meant to streamline handling, transportation
and disposal of various types of waste, with the regulations set in place to protect
human health and the environment with emphasis on waste minimization, cleaner
production and segregation of waste at source.
20. The Tribunal takes the position that without sufficient identification and articulation
of measures and methods for management of waste water treatment and solid waste
handling and without an adequate environmental management plan for it, there is
real threat of discharge and disposal by means that will cause further damage than
anticipated particularly because of the surrounding marine environment and the
dependent ecological system within it.
21. The 2nd Respondent in his reply has alleged that it would set up a bio-digester unit. The
2nd Respondent’s witness at the site visit attempted to point out where the bio digester
would be located within the development. However, this was not supported by any
evidence or approved plans for provision of the same. At the trial the 2nd Respondent’s
witness was at pains to explain why such an important item was omitted and reasons
for their inability to present the same to the Tribunal. Unfortunately, despite being
pressed on the issue, the 2nd Respondent’s witness was unable to provide any direct
evidence to support the contention that a bio-digester had been provided for. This
allegation was once again speculative and the Tribunal cannot in the absence of such
evidence find to the contrary.
22. The Tribunal also notes that despite having the second license approved, the 2nd
Respondent continued with works on the project, which is currently at its last floor,
in contravention of all the above described conditions and contrary to the laws. It
was also clear that the development plan continued to change after NEMA approval
without the Authority’s input on the changes made.
23. In addition to the above deficiencies, the Tribunal also notes that several concerns by
lead agencies had been disregarded by the Authority when it proceeded to grant the
second EIA license in contention. For instance:-
a. Fisheries Department which had reiterated the project resulted in damage to
mangroves that act as breeding grounds for fish (thus confirming fears of the
Appellants), that the construction had projected into the ocean and that the 30
metre high water mark regulation had not been met.
b. Forest Department had raised concerns that the project was massive and that
the cleared mangroves ought to be replaced in order not to hurt the environment.
c. KWS no report had been submitted to the agency.
d. Ministry of Water was concerned about the proposal of water harvesting and
urged that the 2nd Respondent consider alternative sources of water, in addition
to concerns as to septic tanks and its location.
e. Ministry of Lands – Physical Planning Department was concerned that no plans
had been submitted for the verification and approval of the 30 M high water
mark which needed to be observed during project implementation.
24. The condition of a 60m riparian reserve was also not addressed by the 2nd Respondent,
who sought instead to rely on their 5m reserve allowance, in contravention of the
license and other related laws including the Constitution that recognizes shoreline
set-back space. In the Tribunal’s view this indicated that the developer did not intend
to fully comply with the law in its development plans, and the result of such defiance
ought to have led to an unequivocal denial of development approval and EIA license.
25. Having considered the evidence tendered, and the above conditions under the license,
the Tribunal finds that the 2nd Respondent has proceeded contrary to key requirements
that go to the core of the project, and has further deliberately failed to appreciate that
development controls through EIA processes are not meant to hinder development but
to harmonize activities under such development with environmental concerns.
26. During the site visit before hearing commenced, the Tribunal was able to observe the
single access road to the project, another concern of the Appellants in this appeal.
In addressing the issue of access road, the 2nd Respondent’s witness claimed that
there was parking provision for 18 spaces and that there was adequate parking space
as most of the buyers did not own cars since they came from out of town. No plan
was shown to assist the Tribunal determine parking spaces provision. The brochure
supplied to the Tribunal at the site visit did not even show the availability of at least 1
parking per unit, at the very least. The Tribunal notes that there may have been about
15 parking spaces, at most. In addition, the 2nd Respondent witness stated that not all
unit residents would have cars in need of parking. That is speculative, and the logical
conclusion is that in the event of cars in excess of parking space available, residents or
their guests will be forced to park on the narrow access road thus potentially posing a
risk to the smooth ingress and egress of the residence.
27. The Tribunal also notes that the road access was clearly too narrow to permit heavy
traffic. The Appellant resides at the end of this road. Her concerns as to the effect of
traffic on her right to access her property are well founded. The 2nd Respondent in
his EIA report stated that he was aware that the Council (as it was then) had plans
to expand the road. Eight years later the County Government has yet to expand this
road. Once again this appears to have been a speculative statement that has now been
proven erroneous. It is the Tribunal’s finding that the road access cannot and does not
support heavy traffic, nor would it adequately cater for the proposed development of
the 2nd respondent.
28. The Appellant in her Appeal expressed her concerns with regard to the disturbance
of wildlife in the area, with the allegation that the habitat was populated by monitor
lizards and other flora and fauna that have disappeared since the construction
begun. Even though no evidence was led to prove this allegation to the Tribunal, it is
noteworthy that the property is on Tudor Creek which is known for its rich flora and
fauna on the waterfront. The same concern was also raised by the Forest Department
as a government agency. In addition, and more worthy to note, is that the riparian
reserve normally set by KWS is 30m but for this particular project, the EIA Licence
conditions had set a reserve of 60m. None of these set back distances were adhered to.
29. Although already addressed, the riparian reserve is crucial for preservation and
protection of eco systems, bio systems and general protection of aquatic environments
and the Tribunal notes that this is another instance where the 2nd Respondent has
exhibited blatant disregard of the concerns raised.
30. In addition, the 2nd Respondent has also failed to state the likely impact of the proposed
development and any mitigation measures at all for likely negative impacts of the
projects on such wildlife during the construction and operational phase. It would
appear that such impacts were not part of the concerns because it did not address
them during the planning stage of the project. This is contrary to Regulation 7 (f) of the
Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations which specifically requires
a statement of proposed mitigation measures to be undertaken during and after the
implementation of any project. In addition, it is also contrary to the requirements of the
EMCA and the Constitution, in particular Section 3 and Article 42, on environmental
protection in light of human activities with potential impacts.
31. The collapse of the Appellants’ wall and security threat and resulting interference of
privacy has also concerned the Appellants. The wall was said to have collapsed out
of the 2nd Respondent’s constructions. The Tribunal had the occasion to witness the
collapsed and weakened wall. It posed a serious threat to the Appellant. It is clear
that the construction has affected the wall’s stability. The fact that the construction
had stopped contributed to the weakness of the wall. However, this does not absolve
the 2nd Respondent from responsibility and impact on the structural soundness
of the Appellant’s wall when constructing its building. In fact it is clear that the
2nd Respondent had an opportunity to take mitigating steps at an early stage. Yet it
proceeded to construct its building up to the 4th floor while ignoring the obvious risk
it had exposed its neighbor to.
32. In previous cases before this Tribunal, including NET/23/2007 Hon. Beth Mugo & 7
others v. Director General, NEMA and Silver Crest Enterprises Ltd, the Tribunal has
had occasion to consider NEMA’s approval of developments on the basis of project
reports alone and stated the need for NEMA, in such circumstances, to consult with
potentially affected persons.
33. In such cases as the one cited above, the Tribunal has stated that the purpose of the EIA
procedure stipulated in Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, is
to assess the potential impacts of a proposed project on the environment. As part of
that assessment, NEMA considers the views of potentially affected persons and of equal
importance the input from agencies, before the EIA study report is then considered.
34. However, in this particular instance, the Tribunal observes that even though there was
compliance with the requirement for publication in the gazette and holding of a public
hearing for comments, objections and or reviews, there was total failure to comply
with Section 17 of the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations
2003. Section 17 states inter alia:
“17. (1). During the process of conducting an environmental impact assessment study
under these Regulations, the proponent shall in consultation with the Authority, seek
the views of persons who may be affected by the project.
(2). In seeking the views of the public, after the approval of the public, after approval of
the project report by the Authority, the proponent shall –
a. publicize the project and its anticipated effects and benefits…
b. hold at least three public meetings with affected parties and communities to explain
the project and its effects, and to receive their oral or written submissions.”
35. The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003, under
Regulations 21 and 22 contain provisions which state that once the study report has
been received by the Authority, another invitation to the public ought to be made,
seeking the public’s oral or written comments on the report. A second publication
in the Kenya Gazette thus ought to be published for two consecutive weeks notifying
the public to bring forth their views and concerns. Lastly, Regulation 22 (1) states
that upon receipt of both oral and written comments as specified by Sections 59 and
60, the Authority may hold a public hearing, with all conditions and requirements for
such public hearings being clearly laid out under Section 22.
36. The Tribunal notes that no second gazettement was made contrary to the above
provisions as indicated. The Tribunal notes firstly, that only one public hearing took
place, which was held on the 20th of June 2012, and secondly, several concerns were
raised by lead agencies at the public hearing and yet, despite the irregularities and
non-compliance, NEMA still proceeded to authorize the development.
37. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that for the foregoing reasons the Appeal is merited
and allows the same. The 2nd Respondent has already constructed its development to a
substantial level. It should consider a variation of its plans and resubmit a proposal to
the relevant authorities with due regard and compliance with the law and address the
plethora of concerns raised to avoid demolition.
IN THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. NET 198 OF 2016
AFRICAN BIOSAFETY STAKEHOLDERS’ FORUM (ABSF)…...APPELLANT

Versus
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (NEMA)………….………..……………RESPONDENT
Judgment
1. This Appeal was filed on 16 December 2016 by way of a Notice of Appeal dated 14th
th
December 2016 together with Supporting Affidavit against NEMA’s failure to issue a
Record of the Decision on the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)
project for the entry of insect-pest protected (Bt) candidate maize varieties into National
Performance Trials (NPT) at the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS)
designated sites (ESIA Project Report) submitted by the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock
Research Organisation (KALRO) and the African Agricultural Technology Foundation
(AATF).
Issues for determination

6. Both the Appellants and the Respondent attempted to frame issues for determination
by this Tribunal. However, following presentation of the submissions by the parties and
on review of the pleadings before this Tribunal , the Tribunal considered the following
preliminary and paramount issues, which had not been addressed by either party:
a. What is the scope of the Tribunal s jurisdiction?
b. Is the Appeal properly before the Tribunal?
Determination by the tribunal
What is the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction?

7. This Tribunal is a creature of statute pursuant to Section 125 of the EMCA. The scope of
its mandate is governed by statute and it cannot escape the clutches of the statutory
provisions creating and empowering it. Section 129 of the EMCA, as amended from time
to time, sets out the scope of the National Environment Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Is the Appeal properly before the Tribunal?

8. To answer this question, it is important to determine whether the matter falls within the
scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and whether this is an appeal under section 129(1) [the
licencing provisions] or 129(2) [the Director-Generals decisions] of EMCA. In either situation
the twin questions of time-limits for filing the appeal and the Appellant’s locus standi to
lodge the appeal would have to be considered.
a. Time-frames for filing of appeal
9. Appeals under Section 129(1) and (2), from a decision of the Respondent would have
to be filed within 60 days of the date of the decision under challenge. The difference in
the two being that under Section 129(1) the time within which an appeal ought to be
lodged is incapable of extension by the Tribunal while the time within which an appeal
under Section 129(2) ought to be lodged may be extended by the Tribunal pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 7 of the National Environmental Tribunal Procedure Rules 2003.
10. Since the appeal filed by the Appellant seeks to challenge either a refusal to grant a
licence under Section 129(1)(a) ; then in both instances it was clear that this is an appeal
under Section 129(1) of EMCA which is governed by strict time limitation for filing of an
appeal.
11. The provisions of Section 129(1) in so far as the time for filing of an appeal is concerned
is uncompromising. An appeal has to be filed within 60 days after the occurrence of the
date against which the person appealing is dissatisfied. It is incapable of extension.
12. In the present appeal, the decision which is the centre of the grievance is the decision
contained in the letter of 5th October 2016 by the Respondent. Sixty (60) days begun
running from that date and expired on 4th December 2016.
13. This appeal was filed on 14th December 2016, after the time permitted for filing of an
appeal.
b. Does the Appellant have locus to bring this appeal?
14. The difficulty with the Appellants case is that despite advancing serious arguments
on the sensitive issues of whether or not to allow testing and research in the area of
biotechnology, it appears to do so on behalf of parties (the proponents) who are not part
of these proceedings.
15. In Nairobi Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application Number 111 of 2008- Republic vs.
National Environmental Tribunal & 3 Others ex-parte Ol Keju Ronkai Ltd & Another the
court held as follows:-
“” There is no dispute that the 1st Interested Party did not participate in the EIA study process for
the development in question, in NEMA’s process of approval of the development or complaint to
the PCC. It cannot be said that it was aggrieved by this entire process which led to the issuance
of the licence as it did not participate in it and no decision was made against it that would have
led to a challenge by way of appeal to the Respondent. There is no way one can read Section
129 of EMCA to make the 1st Interested Party “an aggrieved Party”…Although that decision
of NEMA is capable of being the subject of appeal to the Respondent Tribunal , the decision
cannot however be the subject of appeal; by the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties. The 2nd and 3rd
Interested Parties are not parties being or aggrieved by any decision referred to in Section
129(1) (a-e) or in Section 129(2) of the Act. They are incapable of pleading either a refusal to
grant a licence or the transfer of a licence, the imposition of conditions, limitation or variation
of their licence or the amount of money required to be paid as a fee under the Act, they cannot
also plead on appeal the imposition against them of an EIA Improvement letter by the authority
for the same reasons the decisions of NEMA cannot be the subject of an appeal by the 2nd and 3rd
Interested Parties under Section 129(2) of the Act…and whereas I agree that strict locus standi
requirement has been vacated in Kenya… I do not however agree with the contention that the
right of locus standi includes or means the right to bring action or appeal before any forum or
put differently, the requirement of locus standi have not been vacated in every forum. The strict
requirement has been vacated in respect of only one forum, namely the High Court of Kenya,
and on specific grounds. The strict requirement of locus standi has not been vacated in respect
of the Respondent Tribunal which has a specific jurisdiction under EMCA namely appeals…
the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties have no locus standi or rights to bring any appeal before the
Respondent Tribunal and that said Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any action or appeal
from the said interested parties…”
16. The clear dicta in the case above has been cited with approval and applied in subsequent
cases of the High Court (e.g. MILIMANI LAW COURTS JR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
NO.217 OF 2015: REPUBLIC vs THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT TRIBUNAL ex parte Athi
Water Services Board)
17. From the evidence before us and submissions of the parties it is clear that the Appellant
was not the proponent of the intended project and has laid no evidence before us to show
a nexus between itself and the proponents or the intended project. We have also not been
informed about the reasons why the proponents of the intended project did not file the
appeal themselves and whether they are at all aggrieved by the decision made by the
Respondent.
POLITICAL PARTIES DISPUTES TRIBUNAL JURISPRUDENCE
In the year 2017/2018, the PPDT dealt with the following categories of complaints, namely-
a) Party list petitions
PPDT Complaint No. 424 of 2017
Henry Wanyoike Wahu vs. Jubilee Party
The Claimant has a visual disability. He applied for nomination to the Kiambu County
Assembly. His name was initially included in the list initially forwarded to the Independent
Electoral and Boundaries Commission by the Respondent, but was eventually omitted. He
was never informed of the decision to exclude his name.
The Respondent contended that nominations were guided by the law and were fair and
justifiably in line with party regulations. The Claimant was simply not among those whose
applications were successful. That the Respondent has the discretion to determine the
criteria to use in nominating candidates. In particular, it is stated that the Respondent was
not chosen because of the hundreds of qualified applicants jostling for limited nomination
slots.
In making its determination, the Tribunal observed that it must, under Section 11 of the Fair
Administrative Action Act, always grant the most appropriate reliefs in every dispute before
it. The Tribunal must not only vindicate the rights of the aggrieved party before it, but also
remedy any violation of the Constitution. It allowed the Complaint and ordered that the
Complainant’s name be included in the Jubilee Party’s Party list for Kiambu County.
b) Disputes arising from ordinary political party activities
PPDT Complaint No. 1 of 2018

Angela Gathoni Wambura & Another vs. Hon. Musalia Mudavadi & 3 Others and Amani National
Congress & Another as Interested Parties
The Claimants in this matter sought to have the activities and subsequent actions by the
Special National Executive Council, of the Amani National Congress nullified on the basis
that the persons gazetted as the party officials, were not duly elected. The Respondents
filed a preliminary objection on the grounds that the parties had not exhausted the internal
disputes resolution mechanisms, pursuant to Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act, 2011.
In determining the objection, the Tribunal found that the Complainant had attempted to
effect Internal Disputes Resolution Mechanism but was frustrated. As such, the Complaint
was properly before the Tribunal and was heard on merit.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIV AND AIDS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
HAT CASE NO.009 OF 2015
M. M……………….……………………………………….CLAIMANT
VERSUS
INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS ALLIANCE………..……..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL
Introduction
This suit was commenced vide a statement of claim dated and filed on 24th September 2015.
On 19th November 2015, the claimant further filed an amended statement of claim of an even
date in which she sought judgment in the following terms;
1) A declaration that the Respondent’s discriminative acts are unlawful and contrary to
HAPCA.
2) A declaration that the Respondent’s actions constituted discriminatory acts within
the meaning of Section 31(1) (a) and (b) of the HIV and AIDs Prevention and Control
Act
3) Damages for emotional and psychological distress
4) Costs and interest on 3(a), (b) and 4 above at court rates until payment in full.
5) Any other or further relief that this Honorable Court may be pleased to grant until
full payment.
6) Any other or further relief that this Honorable Tribunal may be pleased to grant.
Brief
The Claimant was an employee of Ray Drop Clinic where she worked as a community
mobilizer under the Respondent’s Ray project from 16th December 2009 to 30th April 2011.
The Respondent is a national membership network of over 1000 Organizations comprising
of Non-Governmental Organizations, Community Based Organizations and Faith Based
Organizations, Private Sector, Research and Learning Institutions responding to HIV/
AIDS and Tuberculosis in Kenya. It is also accredited as a Linking Organizations with the
International HIV/AIDS Alliance.
The Claimant’s cause of action is founded on a photograph posted on the Respondent’s

website which contained some explanatory statements which without the knowledge and/
or consent of the claimant misrepresented that she was a client of the Respondent (implying
that she was an HIV Positive sex worker) who was waiting to be attended. The Claimant
alleged that the said statement falsely and maliciously misrepresented that;
a) She was a sex worker
b) She was a client at the Respondent’s clinic
c) She was a person living on the earnings of prostitution
d) The Claimant further maintained that the statement albeit indirectly by way of
innuendo published her HIV status in contravention of the provisions of the of the
HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act.
Analysis and issues for determination

The Claimant entered into an agreement with the Respondent for the use of her Photograph.
By the terms of the said agreement, consent was given for the use of the Claimants
photograph strictly for educational, promotional and fundraising purposes. The Photograph
was used by the Respondent as per the terms of the agreement BUT with a narrative which
was both defamatory and demeaning to the Claimant and which was published without her
knowledge and/or consent.
The Claimant alleges that the Photograph together with the narration defamed, demeaned
and disclosed her HIV status in violation of her rights under Section 22 of the HIV and AIDs
Prevention and Control Act and further invaded her privacy and confidentiality and as a
result, she sought compensation.
The Respondent’s response was that the publication was done within the terms of the
consent granted by the Claimant. That the agreement did not in itself restrict the use of the
photograph. The Respondent further alleges that the claimant had gone public regarding her
status anyway and accordingly the publication was not a violation of her rights to privacy
and confidentiality. The Respondent therefore maintains that the Claimant’s case is frivolous
and ought to be dismissed.
The Tribunal found the following issues fall for determination;

1) Whether the claimant actually consented as alleged by the Respondent
2) Whether the narrative was capable of violating the Claimant’s rights
3) Whether the narrative fell within the terms of the so-called consent
4) Whether the Respondent has a good defence
Whether the claimant actually consented to the publication of the narrative

It is not enough to argue that the Claimant consented to the use of her photograph. There
is need to examine whether what was given by the Claimant and which the Respondent
understood to be consent actually met the threshold of consent as in law conceived. Secondly
there is need to examine exactly what using the Photograph for educational, promotional
and fundraising purposes meant.
As this Tribunal has held several times, not every consent counts. The only consent that
count within the meaning of Section 22 of the HIV and AIDs Prevention and Control Act is
“informed consent.” Informed consent has two elements: ‘Knowledge /Information’ and
‘Consent.’
Neither element on its own is sufficient to satisfy the legal requirement of informed consent.
It must be proved that the Individual alleged to have given consent had been fully informed of
all the relevant information and that she fully understood the information and consequently
agreed freely to give the consent. Where what is being consented to is vague, ambiguous
and unclear or where no information whatsoever was given to the individual alleged to have
consented prior to the giving of the consent, then the consent given is not informed consent
within the meaning of Section 22 of the HIV and AIDs Prevention and Control Act.
In this case, the Respondent contended that the Claimant consented to “the use of the
Photograph for educational, promotional and fundraising purposes.” What exactly does
this mean? Did the Ipso Facto authorize the disclosure of the claimants HIV status alongside
the Photo?
We hold and find that the Phrase, “use of the Photograph for educational, promotional and
fundraising purposes” was vague and the claimant could not have consented to what she
did not understand. Besides, the phrase “using the photograph” means just that; “using
the Photograph.” It does not authorize the unlawful disclosure of the claimant’s HIV Status
alongside the Photo.
It was held in the case of Diav V Botswana Building Society [(2003) 2 BLR 409] that the
person must not just give consent but must give informed consent, meaning that before the
person may give consent, he or she must be made to fully appreciate the consequences and
implications of his or her consent. The justification for the insistence on informed consent
being given prior to testing or disclosure of test results was given in the following terms by
the South African Supreme Court in the case of Van Vuuren V Kruger [(1993) 4 SA 842]:
“There are in the case of HIV and AIDs special circumstances justifying the protection of
confidentiality. By the very nature of the disease, it is essential that persons who are at risk should
seek medical advice and treatment. Disclosure of the condition has serious personal and social
consequences for the patient. He is often isolated or rejected by others which may lead to increased
anxiety, depression and psychological conditions that may tend to hasten the onset of the so-called
full blown AIDs.”
We therefore find and hold that there was no consent to the publication of the narrative
beneath the Photo.
Whether the narrative was capable of violating claimants rights
The Claimant pleaded that the contents of the narrative violated her rights to privacy and
confidentiality. It is common ground that the Claimant has the right to privacy with regards
to HIV related information and that the same is deserving of legal protection. It is also
apparent by the said narration, the Respondent did disclose the Claimants HIV information
to the Public thus subjecting her to unwarranted public scrutiny and exposure.
The Right to Privacy of HIV related information is founded on Section 22 of the HIV and AIDs
Prevention and Control Act, which states that
“No person shall disclose any information concerning the results of an HIV test or any related
assessments to any person except-
(a) With the written consent of that person
What emerges is that the Respondent was under an obligation not to release the Claimant’s
information without her knowledge and/or consent. The narrative in question reads:-
“Mildred Macharia, a community mobilization worker at Ray Clinic, waiting to learn her
current CD4 Count “. The phrase, “waiting to learn her current CD4 Count” counts as
medical information which ought to have been brought to the Claimant’s attention and her
consent sought by the Respondent prior to the publishing of such information.
The Respondent did not produce evidence of a written consent allowing the release of the
claimant’s medical information. In the absence of such written consent explicitly allowing
the narration to be published on the Respondent’s website, consent cannot be said to have
been granted. The Tribunal therefore found that the publishing of the narration by the
Respondent without her prior consent is unjustifiable and the same is a violation of the
Claimant’s rights to privacy and confidentiality.
Whether the narration fell within the terms of the so called written consent
It is the Respondent’s defence that the Claimant consented to the use of the photograph for
educational, promotional and fundraising through all media including printed documents
and that the same was granted without any limitations or restrictions as to the use of the
Photograph.
The Agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent purportedly allowed the
Respondent to “use the images in a sensitive way and in accordance with the charitable objects”.
The scope of the word “use” is however not indicated in the Contract.
The Respondent alleges that parties did not agree on the wordings to be utilized to caption the
said photographs and that the same was left to the Respondent and its agents who employed
creative liberty in coming up with the narrations. The contract if strictly interpreted does
not give the Respondent the right to develop and publish captions without consent. Even
if that was the case, the Respondent had a responsibility not to use statements that were
capable of violating the Claimant’s rights or those that were defamatory and demeaning in
nature.
The Claimant has adequately proved that the Clinic’s clientele largely comprised of sex
workers. By publishing the said narration, the Respondent defamed and further demeaned
the Claimant in that the narration implied that she a sex worker being that the clinic majorly
attends to sex workers.
Whether the respondent has a good defence to the claimants case
The Respondent’s case is that the publication was within the terms of the consent and further
that there were no restrictions on the use of the photograph. These two responses have been
adequately dealt with above. The Respondent also claims that the Claimant’s HIV status is a
matter of public knowledge and therefore, no violation of her rights can arise from the said
publication or narration.
The claimant does not deny the fact that she had gone public regarding her HIV status. She
however says that in all the instances she had gone public, she made sure that her close
relatives and friends could not access such information. The Tribunal has considered all these
arguments and finds the Respondent’s defence untenable in light of the express provisions
of Section 22 of the HIV and AIDs Prevention and Control Act.
Section 22 of the Act imposes a duty not to disclose medical information of any person
regardless of whether their HIV status has been made public. This provision expressly
prohibits one from disclosing HIV related information regarding any person without their
written consent. The republication of such information by a person must therefore follow an
express written consent of the person likely to be affected. It is therefore not an adequate
defence to say that a person had already gone public. The claimant still reserves the right to
choose who can access information regarding her HIV status regardless of the fact that she
had previously made her status public
In the United States of America, the Court of Appeal in Doe V City of New York [IS F.3d
264] recognized a right to confidentiality with respect to one’s HIV status as part of a
constitutional right to privacy; after the Plaintiff’s status was made public by a city agency
in the following words.
“Individuals who are infected with the HIV virus clearly possess a constitutional right to privacy
regarding their condition……there is a recognized constitutional right to privacy in personal
information. More precisely, this right can be characterized as “Confidentiality” to distinguish it
from the right to autonomy and independence in decision-making for personal matters.”
What the law protects is the right of the HIV infected person to choose who will have access to
his/her medical information. The mere fact that the HIV infected individual has volunteered
that information to a section of the community does not take away his/her right to restrict
or control access to that same information by any section of the community that may not
have gained access to it. This point was made in the following words in the aforesaid case of
Doe V City of New York:
“Extension of the right to confidentiality to personal medical information recognizes that there are
few matters that are quite so personal as the status of one’s health, the dissemination of which
one would prefer to maintain greater control. Clearly, an individual’s choice to inform others that
she has contracted what is at this point invariably and sadly fatal, incurable disease, is one that
she should normally be allowed to make for herself. This would be time for any serious medical
condition but is especially true with regard to those infected with HIV and living with AIDs,
considering the unfortunately unfeeling attitude among many in this society towards those coping
with the disease. An individual revealing that she is HIV seropositive potentially exposes herself
not to understanding or compassion, but to discrimination and intolerance further necessitating
the extension of the right to confidentiality over such information,”
In view of the above, the Tribunal finds the Claimant’s case not frivolous as the Claimant
has sufficiently proven her case against the Respondent. Based on the quantum of damages
normally awarded by this Tribunal, the Claimant is hereby awarded general damages in the
sum of Kshs. 1,500,000/= for emotional and psychological distress suffered.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIV & AIDS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI
HAT CASE NO. 007 OF 2017
J.M.M……………………………………….……..………..CLAIMANT
VS
AGA KHAN HOSPITAL KISUMU………..……....…..1ST RESPONDENT
AVERY (EAST AFRICA) LIMITED……….….…..…2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
Brief Facts:
The claimant herein, commenced these proceedings vide a Statement of Claim dated 4th
October 2017 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Severance pay for unfair termination

(ii) Exemplary damages
(iii) General damages
(iv) A public apology by the respondents to the claimant
(v) Costs of this suit
(vi) Any other or further remedy that this tribunal shall deem fit to grant.
The main issues for determination in this matter may therefore be summarized as follows:
(a) Whether the Honourable Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this matter owing
to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act (cap 22 Laws of
Kenya)
(b) Whether the claimant had capacity to sue under Order 32(2)(1) of the Civil
Procedure Act (cap 21 Laws of Kenya
(c) Whether the Honourable Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate over the claim
for severance pay for unfair termination in spite of the provisions of Section 12 of
The Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, as read together with Section
90 of the employment act 2007.
(d) Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine alleged violations of the
constitutional rights as set out under Articles 27, 28 and 31 of The Constitution of
Kenya, 2010.
Determination:
(A) Whether this suit is statute-barred
The 1st respondent maintains that the claimant’s suit herein is statute barred because the
claimant was tested for HIV in 2011 and his employment with the 2nd respondent was also
terminated on 2011, yet this suit was filed in 2017 which is outside the three year period
prescribed by Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act. According to the 1st Respondent
therefore, all the causes of actions disclosed herein are tortuous in nature and should
therefore have been filed within three (3) years.
It is our view that a distinction must always be drawn between the “events” giving rise to
a cause of action and the “cause of action” itself. In the case of DRUMMOND JACKSON V
BRITAIN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1970) WLR 688 OF 616, Pearson J defined cause of action
as follows: “A cause of action is an act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his
cause of complaint”
Similarly, in Read V Brown (1889 22 QBD 128 Lord Esher M. R. defines cause of action in the
following words: “Every fact which if would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed, in
order to support his right to judgment of the court”
Finally Lord Diplock, in Letang V Cooper (1964)2 ALL ER 929 at 934 defined cause of action as
follows: “A cause of action is simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person
to obtain from the court a remedy against another person”
From these definitions, it follows that several events which are widely separated from each
other in time, space and distance, may well give rise to one course of action, or several causes
of action. Where for example two events giving rise to the same tortuous cause of action are
separated by a period of more than three years, then it becomes unclear when the cause of
action accrued. Where for example an employee is made to work in conditions that expose
him to the risk of contracting cancer and where the employee contracts cancer fifteen years
after leaving his employment then, can it be said that the employee has a valid cause of
action against the employer? And if so when does the limitation period start running?
If cause of action means, as Esher M.R. says in Read V Brown (supra) “those facts which a party
must prove to succeed in a case”, then it follows that a cause of action does not accrue until
ALL the events giving rise to the cause of action have occurred, and UNTIL the person is in
possession of ALL the facts which he/she needs to sustain that particular cause of action.
In the illustration given above the cause of action against the employer does not therefore
accrue until the employee contracts cancer, and until the employee becomes aware that his
ailment is attributable to the exposure to noxious working conditions fifteen years earlier
by his employer.
In this case, the claimant sued the employer not just for terminating his employment for any
other ground but for “terminating his employment on grounds of his HIV status.” This means
that the facts showing that the employer knew of his HIV status, facts showing and that
the employer illegally acquired that information in violation of a statute and finally facts
showing that the employer used the claimants HIV status as a ground for terminating his
employment are ALL comprised within the cause of action. The cause of action does not
therefore accrue until all such facts have come to light. Such facts were in this case only
revealed to the claimant on 25th May 2015. Accordingly, while the cause of action founded
upon termination of employment “on any other ground” accrued in 2011, the cause of action
founded on termination of employment “on grounds of HIV status” accrued only on 25th May
2015.
The three year period prescribed in Section 90 of the Employment Act, therefore started
running on 25th May 2015. Consequently, the suit against the employer was brought within
the period limited by the Limitation of Actions Act.
Moreover, the claimant’s suit disclosed more than one course of action. In addition to the
cause of action founded upon termination of the claimant’s employment on grounds of HIV
status, this suit also raises other distinct causes of action which include the following;
(i) subjecting the claimant to non-consensual HIV-testing
(ii) Subjecting the claimant to HIV –testing in violation of the provisions of the HIV and
AIDS prevention and control Act
(iii) Disclosure of the claimants HIV status without his written consent
(iv) Alleged violation of the claimant’s privacy and confidentiality rights.
All these causes of action are not specifically provided for in the Limitation of Actions Act.
Accordingly, we find that Section 4(1)(e) of the Limitation of Actions Act apply in relation to
them. The said section provides as follows:
4(1) the following actions may not be brought after the end of 6years from the date on which the
cause of action accrued--- (e) actions (including actions claiming equitable reliefs) for which no
other period of limitation is provided by this Act or by any other written law.
It follows therefore that all the above causes of action could be brought within six years from
the date when the cause of action accrued, which in our judgment, means six years from
25th May 2015.
(B) whether the claimant had the requisite mental capacity to institute this suit
Lastly, the respondents questioned the mental capacity of the claimants to file this suit. In
our view, capacity refers to a person’s mental state at the time of filing suit.
No evidence has been furnished with regards to the claimant’s mental capacity at the time
of filing this suit. The argument that the claimant has suffered mental illness sometime in
the past, in our view, is irrelevant.
Besides, the question as to whether the claimant had the requisite mental capacity to
institute this suit at the time when the suit was filed is a factual rather than legal question,
and accordingly, a preliminary objection cannot be taken out on it. In the case of Mukisa
Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696 Sir Charles Newbold
JA stated thus:
“The first matter relates to the increasing practice of raising points, which should be argued in
the normal manner, quite improperly by way of preliminary objection. A preliminary objection is
in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the
assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact
had to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. The improper raising
of points by way of preliminary objection does nothing but unnecessarily increase costs and, on
occasion, confuse the issue. The improper practice should stop.”
We therefore find and hold that a preliminary objection cannot be anchored on the claimant’s
mental status.
In addition to the above, a distinction must always be drawn between medical insanity and
legal insanity. Although he may have been medically insane, the claimant’s ability to realize
his claim and put together the facts giving rise to his cause of action proves legal sanity. In
the High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 51 of 2015 MMM vs AMK Honourable
Justice Mativo in reference to Order 32 Rule 15 held that;
“I have given the above rule complete system of thought and in my considered opinion and
interpretation, five principles outlined below can be discerned from this rule. These principles are
designed to protect people who lack capacity to make particular decisions, but also to maximize
their ability to make decisions, or to participate in decision-making, as far as they are able to do
so. These are:-
(i) a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he/she lacks capacity
(ii) a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help
him/her to do so have been taken without success
(iii) a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he/she makes an
unwise decision
(iv) an act done, or decision made, under the above rule for or on behalf of a person who lacks
capacity must be done, or made, in his/her best interests
(v) Before the court is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose
for which it is needed can be as affectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the
person’s rights and freedom of action.
Therefore, the issue of the capacity remains live and is left for the courts determination,
during the hearing of this suit.
(C) whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s suit owing to section 12 of the
employment and labour relations courts act
The 2nd Respondent argues that Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Courts
Act (Hereinafter referred to as ELRC Act) denies this tribunal jurisdiction to entertain the
claimant’s suit, which jurisdiction, it is argued, is reserved to the Employment and Labour
Relations Courts (hereinafter called ELR Courts).
As was said in the celebrated case of Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian “S” V. Caltex Oil (1989)
KLR 1 jurisdiction derives from statute. In this case, Section 26 of HIV & AIDS Prevention
and Control Act (hereinafter called HAPCA) vests in this tribunal jurisdiction to hear and
determine disputes relating to ALL violations of HAPCA, including violations which would
also fall within the jurisdiction of ELR Courts. Termination of employment on grounds of
HIV status clearly falls within the jurisdiction of this tribunal under Section 26 of HAPCA.
Both HAPCA and ELRC Act are legislations passed by Parliament. None of them is superior
to the other.
Besides, as was held by the Court of Appeal in Law Society Of Kenya Nairobi Branch V. Malindi
Law Society & Others (2017) eKLR, the mere fact that ELR Courts are given by the constitution
the original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine employment related disputes
does not mean that Tribunals or other subordinate courts cannot handle the same disputes.
On that issue, the Court of Appeal pronounced itself in the following words:
“We are unable to construe that Article as limiting the power of Parliament to
confer jurisdiction, on the courts already established by the Constitution under
Article 169(1) (a), (b) and (c). Article 169(2) provides that Parliament shall
enact legislation conferring jurisdiction, functions and powers on the courts
established under clause 169(1). A distinction should thus be drawn between
the power given to Parliament under the Constitution to establish courts. Which
in this case is restricted, and the power to confer jurisdiction on courts. It is
acknowledged in the preamble to the Magistrates Courts Act, that it is an Act
of Parliament to give effect to Article 169 (1)(a) of the Constitution” to confer
jurisdiction, functions and powers on the magistrates’ courts”. We do not
consider that in doing so, Parliament in any way exceeded its mandate or acted
ultra vires”.
The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that parliament has power to confer jurisdiction on
courts created under Article 169 of the Constitution which includes local tribunals to deal
with matters reserved for the specialized courts under Article 162 of the Constitution. The
court stated thus:
“In our view, conferring jurisdiction on magistrate’s courts to hear and
determine matters reserved for specialized Courts under Article 162 of the
Constitution does not diminish the specialization of the specialized courts
considering that appeals from the magistrates courts over those matters lie with
the specialized courts. As urged by Mr. Kanjama, under the doctrine of judicial
precedent, the decisions of the specialized courts would bind the magistrate’s
courts and the specialized courts would therefore undoubtedly imprint the
“specialized jurisprudence on the magistrate’s courts”.
Accordingly we hold that Parliament properly conferred jurisdiction upon this tribunal to
deal with matters that would ordinarily be dealt with by the ELR Courts.
Finally, we agree with the following statement from the Supreme Court of Uganda in Habre
International Co. Ltd V. Kassam & Others (1999) 1EA 125:
“The tendency to interpret the law in a manner that would divest a court of law of
jurisdiction too readily unless the legal provision in question is straightforward
and clear is to be discouraged since it would be better to err in favour of upholding
jurisdiction than to turn a litigant away from the seat of justice without being
heard; the jurisdiction of courts of law must be guarded jealously and should
not be dispensed with too lightly and the interests of justice and the rule of law
demands this”.
We therefore find and hold that this tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for severance
pay in spite of the provisions of Section 12 of ELRC Act.
(D) whether this tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with alleged violations of fundamental rights
and freedoms
The second respondent argues that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to redress alleged
violations of fundamental rights. They rely on the decision of the High Court in Royal Media
Services Ltd Vs. Attorney General & 6 Others (2015) eKLR where the Hon. Justice Mumbi
Ngugi ruled that since the legislation contemplated by Article 23(2) of the Constitution has
not been enacted, subordinate courts still do not have jurisdiction to redress violations of
fundamental rights. The said decision is binding upon this tribunal. Accordingly, we agree
with the 2nd Respondent’s argument that we have no jurisdiction to redress violations of
fundamental rights. The said decision is binding upon this tribunal. Accordingly, we agree
with the 2nd Respondent’s argument that we have no jurisdiction to redress violations of
fundamental rights.
We note however that the claimant’s suit herein raise issues that go beyond mere violation of
fundamental rights. The claimant complain inter alia about termination of his employment
on grounds of his HIV status, being subjected to non-consensual HIV testing, and
unauthorized disclosure of his HIV status. If the claimant’s allegations are true then his
complaints would fall squarely within the jurisdiction of this tribunal, in which case we
will deal with the issues as violations of provisions of HAPCA rather than as constitutional
violations.
The upshot of the above is that this Honourable tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain this
matter and that the Preliminary Objections filed by the respondents have no merit.
SPORTS DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
APPEAL No. 1 OF 2018
KHAALIQA NIMJI……….………...………..……….....APPELLANT
-versus-
KENYA SQUASH RACQUETS ASSOCIATION……...RESPONDENT
DECISION
Hearing: 8th March, 2018
Panel: John Ohaga

Chairperson
Gabriel Ouko -Member
Mary Kimani -Member
Appearances: Mr. Arnold Kwesiga for Applicant

Mr. David Ngunjiri Theuri for Respondent
Mr. Billy Jusa –Interested Party
Mr. Ndirangu Gakuo – Interested Party

1. The Appellant challenged the selection by the Respondent of the players to represent
Kenya at the Commonwealth Games in Gold Coast, Australia. It is the Appellants
contention that the selection of the team as presently constituted was unfair and was not
in accordance with the criteria previously published by the Respondent.
Jurisdiction
2. The Tribunal has undoubted jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute in view of the
provisions of Section 58(a) of the Sports Act, 2013 which states as follows:
The tribunal shall determine –

(a) appeals against decisions made by national sports organizations or umbrella national
sports organizations, whose rules specifically allow for appeals to be made to the Tribunal
in relation to that issue including –
(i) Appeals against disciplinary decisions
(ii) Appeals against not being selected for a Kenyan team or squad
3. Indeed, the policy reason for Parliament giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine matters
of selection readily appears from the spirit in which the Sports Act, 2013 was promulgated.
Without doubt, the purpose of selection of a team to an international event is to ensure that
the country is able to send its very best competitors who would represent the country on the
international stage. Once it is understood that the country expends funds to send sportsmen
and women to international events, it becomes clear that such expenditure must be expended
on the basis of the criteria that can be verified, that is ascertainable and objective, and this
is in keeping with the Constitutional Principles set out at Article 10 (2) (c) which states
that National Values and Principles include good governance, integrity, transparency and
accountability.
Discussion
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties as well as the documents
made available to us relating to the criteria for selection and the various decisions of the
Association relating to this issue.
5. The Association was informed in good time by NOCK regarding participation of squash
in the Commonwealth Games and therefore given sufficient time to prepare. Indeed, the
Association very wisely requested all players who were interested in participating in the
games to declare their interest and received from approximately 25 players.
6. The Association further went ahead in September 2017 to set out the criteria by which
the selection would be carried out using trials as the basis amongst other requirements.
This was fair and equitable to all the interested participants. This provided a transparent
and verifiable process that would be agreeable to ALL players.
7. However, in December 2017, when the Committee found out that the number of
members had been reduced, they decided to change the selection to rankings from the
initial process which was based on trials. This was done without any consultation of the
members and it was Mr. Ngunjiri’s view that this was a valid and proper decision which
fell within the discretion of the Executive Committee.
Decision
8. The Sports Act has introduced a new era of transparency, accountability and good
governance in the management of sports organizations and sporting facilities for the
benefit of the sportsman. Unfortunately, many sports organizations have not woken up
to this reality.
9. The purpose of a criteria is to enable both players and officials to have an objective and
verifiable basis upon which selection decisions can be made. Whilst the Tribunal is alive
to the difficulties that Sports organizations face when the number of places available
to send players to international events are reduced, this does not change the principal
which requires the criteria be followed unless there are extraordinary circumstances
which militate against strict adherence to the criteria. Contrary to the Association’s
position that the selection decision is within the discretion of the Executive Committee,
the position articulated by this Tribunal is that the Executive Committee is required to
be guided by the criteria in making its selection decisions, and where there is a change
in the criteria, this must be brought to the attention of the players and coaches, and the
rationale for the change properly explained to the interested parties. Officials of Sports
Organizations can no longer arrogate to themselves the power to run associations at their
whim and without consultation with their members. Indeed, it is for this reason that the
Sports Act requires every sports organization to have a constitution and that selection of
athletes to national teams be based on verifiable criteria.
10. Whilst it may appear on the face of it that the selection based on rankings is justifiable, it
is questionable that this in fact produces the best talent to participate on the international
arena. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal notes that the Executive Committee decided to
exclude some tournaments on the basis that some certain band individuals had attended
those tournaments. The rankings cannot therefore be said to be completely objective.
In any event, as was explained by counsel for the Appellant the rankings do not tell
us which player would indeed be the best when two players have to compete against
each other despite Mr. Ngunjiri’s attempt to explain that rankings are in fact adopted
internationally, he did not explain why it is then that the Association published a criteria
which required trials to be held. Having determined that the Executive Committee did
not follow its own published criteria, the Tribunal is impelled to the conclusion that the
selection by the Association of the players and coach to the Commonwealth Games must
be set aside.
11. We hereby Order the Executive Committee of the KSRA to come up with a transparent
and verifiable trials program for both men and women and which will be placed before
the tribunal on Tuesday, 13 March 2018. The program should have a timetable which must
be finalised by latest Monday, 19 March 2018. The final team list should be presented to
the Tribunal by Tuesday, 20 March 2018.
12. The program should include players plying their trade out of the country and who had
shown interest. It should also include all players who are on indefinite suspension, since
the cases have not been finalised to the Tribunal’s satisfaction.
13. As For the coaches we want a fair and transparent process to be carried out showing
a verifiable and transparent process. All coaches who are interested should be asked
to apply through the usual communication channels. The process to be used to choose
should also be presented on Tuesday, 13 March 2018 and finalised by Monday, 19 march
2018. The final choice should be presented to the Tribunal by Tuesday, 20 March 2018.
14. As we observed at the beginning of this decision, there are many issues which plague
the Association and we were alarmed to hear that the Association is not in fact registered
with the Sports Registrar and is therefore in fact not a recognized sports organization.
The legal effect of this would in fact be that the Association cannot even nominate players
to participate in an international event. However, as the Tribunal has observed time and
again, players are at the apex of the sporting pyramid and to enforce this legal position
would be to deny the players the opportunity to play at the Commonwealth Games. The
Tribunal however will investigate this matter further in consultation with the sports
registrar in order to ensure that the sport of squash takes its rightful place within the
sporting fraternity. This ruling therefore presents the first step in this journey.
15. The Tribunal reserves the determination on costs until it has dealt with all the other
issues that have arisen in the course of hearing this matter.
3.8 Challenges Facing Tribunals
1. Delayed Operationalization of Tribunals
Tribunals are operationalized through the appointment and gazettement of members which
is a critical component of registration, hearing and determination of cases. During the period
under review, the Communication and Multimedia Tribunal, Micro and Small Enterprises
Tribunal, Legal Education Appeals Tribunal, National Civil Aviation Administrative Review
Tribunal, Competent Authority and Education Appeals Tribunal were not operational either
due to lack of board members or operational budget or office space. The Sports Disputes
Tribunal and HIV and AIDS Tribunal had developed rules which were awaiting gazettement.
2. Lack of an organizational structure
The SJT blueprint identified Judiciary Organizational Structure as a key indicator for the
institution to effectively promote integrity and eradicate corruption. The lack of a structure
has been a major weakness in addressing the issues of optimal staffing levels, reporting lines
and relationships, duties and responsibilities and accountability.
To address this, the JSC benchmarked Tribunal Administration with the United Kingdom
and Canada and observed that in these two jurisdictions, tribunals are operationalized
through a centralized system of administration under one roof, whereby tribunals have
shared services, facilities and resources including Human Resources.
Recommendations have been made to engage a consultant to develop the organizational

structure for the Tribunal secretariat and individual tribunals in order to identify the key
functions and employees for supporting expert, registry and corporate services, develop a
detailed matrix of optimal staffing levels and job descriptions and provide the timelines for
engagement of staff.
3. Disparity in terms and conditions of service
The varying terms and conditions of service between tribunal board members and staff
has continued to raise concerns on equity and fairness for equal work done and as such a
challenge to effectively run the tribunals. As majority of tribunals staff are from Ministries,
the implementation of performance appraisal systems in the tribunals has been difficult due
to the dual-reporting relationship to the Ministry and the Judiciary. It is therefore essential
to fast-track the transition process to determine the need for absorption of the Ministerial
staff into the Judiciary or re-calling them back to their respective ministries.
4. Insufficient funding
The budget cuts experienced during the last financial year, affected effective delivery of
services. Planned Tribunal programs like capacity building and trainings of both members
and staff, programs to enhance registry operations and leverage ICT in the registries and
case management could not kick off due to insufficient funding.
It was observed that tribunals have inadequate ICT equipment and furniture hence
affecting service delivery, storage and security of records, accessibility of information and
accountability.
5. Lack of office space
In the long term, as more tribunals transit to the Judiciary there is need to consider shared
facilities for all the tribunals. Tribunals identified to have low caseloads and their sittings
are not held on daily basis should be housed centrally and share office space facilities and
human capital while Tribunals with regional offices such as RRT, BPRT and Co-operative
should be allocated office space in court stations. This is in view of the expansion and
improvement of court facilities across the country.
6. Lack of training
The tribunals reported performance gaps as a result of lack of training. Ministerial Staff cited
challenges in obtaining approvals from the Judiciary to undertake courses notwithstanding
that the training programs having been approved at the Ministry level. Training Needs
Analysis should be undertaken to guide on formulation and implementation of the training
strategy and programs. In-order to develop or extend the skill base, it is recommended that
some of the staff be trained to undertake a wide range of duties to avoid a bloated workforce
in tribunals.
7. Lack of public awareness on the existence of Tribunals
Generally, there is inadequate information on tribunals to the public. This is evident from
the few cases registered in tribunals and matters that could be dispensed with by tribunal
being registered in the courts. This continues to increase backlog in the main stream courts
while on the other hand tribunal boards and staff are underutilized particularly in regard to
the core mandate. Adequate strategies should be put in place to enhance public awareness
on tribunals.
Chapter 4
JURISPRUDENCE
JURISPRUDENCE
4.0 Introduction
Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 provides that judicial authority is derived from
the people and vests in and exercised by the Courts and Tribunals. It provides that the Courts
and Tribunals shall be guided by the following principles:
(a) Justice for all;

(b) Justice without undue delay;
(c) Alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration
and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms shall be promoted;
(d) Justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities; and
(e) The promotion of the purpose and principles of the Constitution.
During the year under review, the Judiciary made numerous ground breaking decisions in
various areas of law including electoral laws, constitutional law, criminal law, family law,
land and environment and employment and labour matters among others. These advanced
the course of justice and the developement of jurisprudence.
In this chapter, we report some of the cases determined by the High Court, the Employment
and Labour Relations Court, the Environment and Land Court, the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court which made an indelible mark on Kenya’s jurisprudence.
4.1 Supreme Court
4.1.1 Constitutionality of the Death Penalty provided for under Section 204 of the Penal Code
Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another vs Republic
Petition No. 15 of 2015
Supreme Court of Kenya
Brief of the Cae
The appeal raised a fundamental legal issue that had engaged other comparative jurisdictions
in a seemingly unending controversy: Whether or not the mandatory death penalty was
unconstitutional.
The petitioners and others had been charged in the High Court with the offence of murder.
Upon conviction, they were sentenced to death as provided by Section 204 of the Penal
Code.
Their appeal to the Court of Appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.
The Petitioners subsequetly filed separate appeals in the Supreme Court, which were
consolidated.
Their contention was that the mandatory death sentence imposed upon them and
the commutation of that sentence by an administrative fiat to life imprisonment was
unconstitutional and therefore null and void. They therefore submitted that they were
entitled to damages, quantum of which the Supreme Court was to assess.
The Petitioners averred that the mandatory nature of the death penalty under Section 204
of the Penal Code limited the discretion of the trial court, compelling it to hand down a
sentence predetermined by the Legislature thus violating the doctrine of separation of
powers.
They submitted that the sentencing process was part of the right of a fair hearing enshrined
in Article 50(2) of the Constitution and the death penalty under Section 204 of the Penal
Code violated that right as it denied the trial judge discretion in sentencing.
The Petitioners further argued that whereas Article 50(2) (q) of the Constitution entitled
any person who had undergone a criminal trial to appeal or seek review from a higher court
including a second appeal, Section 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code limited second
appeals to convictions only if not set by the first appellate court. The Petitioners therefore
contented that the mandatory nature of the death sentence would violate their right to a fair
hearing under this Article.
Issues for determination:
1. Whether the mandatory death sentence and commutation thereof to life imprisonment
are unconstitutional,
2. Whether the mandatory death sentence under Section 204 of the penal code limits the
discretion of the trial court in sentencing the accused,
3. Whether the sentencing process was part of fair hearing as enshrined in Article 50(2)
of the Constitution, and
4. Whether Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code limited second appeal to
conviction only.
Held:
1. The trial process did not stop at convicting the accused person. Sentencing was
also a crucial component of a trial as it was during sentencing that the Court heard
submissions that impacted on sentencing. The mandatory sentence therefore denied
an accused person the right to a fair trial.
2. Under Section 216 and 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code, mitigation was part of the
trial process, as the Court ought to take into account the evidence, the nature of the
offence and the circumstances of the case in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence.
3. A person facing the death sentence most deserved to be heard in mitigation because
of the finality of the sentence.
4. Mitigation was an important element of fair trial and the fact that it was not expressly
mentioned, as a right in the Constitution did not deprive it of its necessity and essence
in the process of a fair trial.
5. The right to fair trial was not just a fundamental right but also one of the inalienable
rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
6. Article 25(c) of the Constitution elevated the right of fair trial to a non-derogable right
which could not be limited or taken away from a litigant and that the right to fair trial
was one of the cornerstones of a just and democratic society without which the rule of
law and public faith in the justice system would inevitably collapse.
7. Section 204 of the Penal Code deprived the court of the use of judicial discretion in a
matter of life and death and was therefore harsh, unjust and unfair.
8. Any Court dealing with the offence of murder was allowed to exercise judicial discretion
by considering any mitigating factors in sentencing an accused person found guilty of
that offence.
9. The petition was remitted back to the High Court for pre-sentence hearing on priority
basis.
10. The Attorney General was directed to set up a task force to establish rules that would
guide the pre-sentencing hearing for all the death sentenced convicts and report to
the Court.
4.1.2 Procedure for Filling Vacancy in the Office of Deputy Governor

In Re Speaker, County Assembly of Embu
Reference No 1 of 2015
Supreme Court at Nairobi
Brief of the case:
On January 28, 2014, the Embu County Assembly approved an impeachment motion against
the Embu Governor and forwarded the resolution to the Senate for approval. The governor
successfully challenged the impeachment proceedings and obtained a judgment from the
High Court, which was affirmed at the Court of Appeal. The judgment did not bar the County
Assembly or Senate from conducting future impeachment proceedings provided that those
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law.
In April 2014, fresh impeachment proceedings were commenced against the Governor. On
May 13, 2014, the Speaker of the Senate published Gazette Notice No. 3222 of 2014, which
contained the Senate’s decision to impeach the Governor. The impeached Governor went to
the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of his impeachment.
After unsuccessfully trying to seek advice from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission and the Attorney General, the Applicant filed a reference seeking the Supreme
Court’s advisory opinion for the purpose of guiding the functioning of the constitutional
sphere of devolved government.
The Applicant, the Speaker of the County Assembly of Embu, sought advice on the following
issues:-
1. Assumption of office of Governor by the Deputy Governor after the impeachment of

the Governor;
2. How the oath for assumption of office would be administered;
3. The filling of the vacancy in the Office of the Deputy Governor after the Deputy
Governor assumed the Office of Governor; and
4. The timelines applicable to the assumption of the Office of Governor after the
impeachment of the Governor.
The applicant submitted that the matter did not replicate the High Court petition, and that
all it did was seek guidance on specific grey areas in the law.
Held:
1. The Reference met the constitutional threshold for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s
Advisory-Opinion jurisdiction under Article 163(6) of the Constitution. This was
because the matter concerned a County Government, the applicant being the Speaker
of Embu County, hence his office was a State organ under Article 178 of the Constitution.
Secondly, the issues raised were not a subject of proceedings in a lower Court and that
the applicant had sought an opinion from the Office of Attorney-General to no avail.
2. That the issues raised in the Reference were of great public importance, especially at a
time when the Country had just had a General Election
3. That the Constitution had contemplated certain scenarios, when a vacancy in the office
of the Governor may occur: first, where the office of the Governor falls vacant, and the
Deputy Governor assumes that office; secondly, where a vacancy occurs in both the
office of Governor and Deputy Governor, and the Speaker of the County Assembly
assumes office as Governor for 60 days, within which an election is to be held; thirdly,
where a vacancy occurs in the office of the Governor, and the Deputy Governor is
unable to hold an acting capacity. In such an eventuality, the Speaker of the County
Assembly assumed office and acted as Governor for 60 days, during which time an
election was to be held. Based on this, it emerged that Article 182(2) of the Constitution
created a pecking order whereby, if a vacancy in the office of the Governor occurred,
the first to take over was the Deputy Governor, and in his absence, the Speaker of the
County Assembly takes up the position for a limited period of 60 days, pending the
conduct of an election. The court however recognized that the Constitution was silent
on how to fill the position of a Deputy Governor, in the event of a vacancy.
4. That the Office of Governor and that of Deputy Governor were so intimately linked,
that the latter is dependent upon the election of Governor. This is in accordance with
the Constitution as an incoming Deputy Governor is nominated by a person vying
for the position of Governor; and upon the candidate for Governor being elected, the
IEBC declared the nominee as Deputy Governor, in accordance with the provisions of
Article 180(5) and (6).
5. That the Constitution also expressly dispensed with the detached election of a Deputy
Governor who assumed office upon the election of the Governor that nominated him
or her, hence the supposition that, the Constitution did not contemplate the filling of
a vacancy in the office of Deputy Governor through a direct election to that office.
6. Under the provisions of Article 179(1), (4) and (5) of the Constitution, as read together
with Section 32 of the County Government Act, the Deputy Governor was the Deputy
Chief Executive of the County; was a member of the County Executive Committee; and
acted as the Governor, in the absence of the Governor. So crucial were these roles to
the operations of County Government that it was inconceivable that, constitutionally,
they could remain fallow until the next cycle of a General Election. The Court was
therefore, of the opinion that the office of Deputy Governor ought not to remain
vacant until the next General Election. A differing interpretation to this, in the eyes of
the Court would be inconsistent with the vital objects of the Constitution, which had
to be upheld.
7. Under Article 259 of the Constitution, every provision of this Constitution shall be
construed according to the doctrine of interpretation that the law is always speaking.
This principle, the court averred, called for a reading of Article 182 of the Constitution
alongside Article 149, which made provision for the procedure and timelines for filling
a vacancy in the Office of the Deputy President.
8. According to Article 149 of the Constitution, and in the absence of any applicable
legislative provision, the Court held that the following procedure would be followed:-
i. Where a vacancy occurs in the Office of the Deputy Governor, the Governor
shall within 14 days, nominate a person to fill such vacancy;
ii. The County Assembly shall vote on the nomination within 0 days after receiving
it;
iii. Where a vacancy occurs in both the offices of Governor and the Deputy Governor
at the same time, the office of the Deputy County Governor shall remain vacant
until the election of a new Governor;
iv. The new Governor shall nominate a person to fill the vacancy within 14 days
after assuming office; and
v. The County Assembly shall vote on the nomination within 0 days after receiving
it.
The Court stated that the holding shall obtain in all circumstances pursuant to which the
Office of the Deputy Governor may become vacant as contemplated by the Constitution, i.e.
death, resignation or impeachment.
As regards the administration of the oath of office to a Deputy County Governor who assumed
office under Article 182(2) of the Constitution, the court relied on the provisions of Article
74 of the Constitution and Section 30(1) of the County Government Act which provides
respectively that “Before assuming a State office, acting in a State office, or performing any
functions of a State office, a person shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation of office,
in the manner and form prescribed by the Third Schedule or under an Act of Parliament.”
And “The Governor shall take and subscribe to the oath or affirmation as set out in the
Schedule to this Act before assuming office.”
The Court therefore held that the provisions of Article 74 of the Constitution and Section 30
of the County Government Act were applicable to a Deputy County Governor who assumed
the Office of Governor under Article 182(2) of the Constitution. The new Governor would take
and subscribe to the oath or affirmation set out in the Schedule to the County Government
Act before assuming office.
4.1.3 Recusal of a Supreme Court Judge
Gladys Boss Shollei vs Judicial Service Commission and Another [2018] EKLR
The Supreme Court of Kenya
Brief of the case:
The Employment and Labour Relations Court upheld the petitioner`s claim that the Judicial
Service Commission had violated her fundamental rights and freedoms in removing her
from office without any basis in law.
The JSC challenged the decision of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at the Court
of Appeal, which in turn reversed the decision.
The petitioner was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and filed this
petition at the Supreme Court.
Before the petition could proceed to hearing, the petitioner filed an application by way of
Notice of Motion seeking orders that most of the Supreme Court judges, namely: Hon Justice
David Maraga, Chief Justice and the President of the Court, Hon. Philomena Mwilu, Deputy
Chief Justice and Deputy President of the Court, Prof. Jackton Ojwang and Justice Njoki
Ndung`u should recuse themselves from hearing of the petitioner`s appeal, among other
prayers.
Article 163(2) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that the Supreme Court shall be properly
constituted for the purposes of its proceedings if it is composed of five judges, and the
granting of the orders sought would have left only two judges available to hear the appeal,
and the petitioners appeal would not have proceeded to full hearing.
The grounds for the petitioner’s application for recusal were:-
(a) Chief Justice Maraga and Deputy Chief Justice Mwilu were members of the JSC (first
Respondent) and they were therefore conflicted;
(b) Hon. Justice Ojwang had three pending disciplinary proceedings before the JSC; and
(c) Justice Njoki Ndung`u had an active pending litigation against the JSC in which she
was challenging the disciplinary mandate of the Commission.
Issues for Determination:
1. Whether Chief Justice Maraga and Deputy Chief Justice Mwilu who were members of
the JSC were conflicted.
2. Whether Justice J.B Ojwang’ who had pending disciplinary proceedings before the
JSC would be biased in favour of or against the Commission.
3. Whether Justice Ndung’u who had a pending litigation against the JSC would be
impartial.
Held
In dismissing the application, the Supreme Court held:-
a. The Supreme Court has a special mandate, which cannot be delegated, to any other
forum in the entire governance setup;
b. The matter before the Court did not call for the recusal of any of the Supreme Court
Judges as they were committed to their oath of office and would pronounce themselves
unbiased, and that they were ready and willing to own up to their constitutional
mandate of dispensing justice in all matters falling within their jurisdiction;
c. A judge of the Supreme Court has a duty to sit and recusal should not be used to impede
a judge from exercising that right;
d. Judges like other individual persons enjoy the protection of the law to approach the
High Court where they feel that their rights have been violated and the exercise of
such right cannot be ground for recusal; and
e. The recusal and inability of the five bench to hear and determine the petition meant
that the Court of Appeal judgment remained in force until the Supreme Court is
reconstituted.
The application dismissed.
4.1.4 Grounds for nullification of an election
Odinga & Another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2017] eKLR
Presidential Election Petition No 1 of 2017
Supreme Court of Kenya
Brief of the case
On August 8, Kenya held the second general election under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010).
It was the first time that a general election was held under Article 101(1) of the Constitution
which decreed the holding of General Elections every five years on the second Tuesday
of August in the 5th year. The General Election was also held for the first time under an
elaborate regime of electoral laws which included the amendments to the Elections Act
made to introduce the Kenya Integrated Electoral Management System (KIEMS), a new
device intended to be used in the biometric voter registration, and, on the election day,
for voter identification as well as the transmission of election results from polling stations
simultaneously to the Constituency Tallying Centre (CTC) and the National Tallying Centre
(NTC).
On August 11, 2017, the second Respondent, exercising its mandate under Article 138(10)
of the Constitution, as the Returning Officer of the Presidential election, declared the 3rd
Respondent, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, the winner of the elections with 8,203,290 votes and
the first Petitioner , Raila Amolo Odinga as the runner’s up with 6,726,224 votes. On August
18, 2017, the Petitioners, Raila Amolo Odinga and Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, who were the
presidential and deputy presidential candidates respectively of the National Super Alliance
(NASA) coalition of parties, filed the petition challenging the Presidential results.
The Petition was anchored on the grounds that the conduct of the 2017 presidential election
violated the principles of a free and fair election as well as the electoral process set out in the
Constitution, electoral laws and regulations and that the respondents committed errors in
the voting, counting and tabulation of results; committed irregularities and improprieties
that significantly affected the election result; illegally declared as rejected unprecedented
and contradictory quantity of votes; failed in the entire process of relaying and transmitting
election results as required by law; and generally committed other contraventions and
violations of the electoral process.
The Petitioners argued that the IEBC committed massive systemic and systematic
irregularities which went to the very core of holding elections. It was the Petitioners’ case
that the election was marred and significantly compromised by intimidation and improper
influence or corruption. The main claim was non-compliance with the law, the argument
being that the first Respondent announced results on the basis of Forms 34B before receiving
all Forms 34A. It was also alleged that the results announced in Forms 34B were different
from those displayed on the first Respondents’ Public Web Portal.
The petitioners similarly claimed that the IEBC deliberately inflated votes cast in favour of
the 3rd Respondent. As a consequence, they further argued, it was impossible to determine
who actually won the election and/or whether the threshold for winning the election under
the Constitution was met.
The petitioners’ further case was that the results that were streaming in from August 8,
2017 to August 11, 2017 showed a consistent difference of 11per cent between the results
of Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Odinga. According to the Petitioners, such a pattern indicated
that the results were not being streamed randomly from the different polling stations but
that they were being held somewhere and adjusted using an error adjustment formula to
bring in a pre-determined outcome. Inter alia they claimed that the electronic system of
transmission was compromised by third parties who manipulated it and generated numbers
for transmission to the NTC. The Petitioners also took issue with the large number of rejected
votes accounting for at least 2.6 per cent of the total votes cast arguing that that had an
effect on the final results and the outcome of the election.
The first and second Respondents filed a joint response, while the 3rd Respondent filed a
separate rejoinder to the petition. They all opposed the petition and urged the Court to find
that IEBC conducted a free, fair and credible election. It was the Respondents’ case that the
presidential election was conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the IEBC Act, the
Elections Act, the Regulations thereunder, and all other relevant provisions of the law. The
Respondents claimed that, contrary to the allegations of the Petitioners, the process of relay
and transmission of results from the polling stations to the CTC and to the NTC, and from the
CTC to the NTC was simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable, transparent, open and
prompt as required by Article 81 (e) (iv) and (v) of the Constitution.
The Respondents submitted that the alleged inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Forms 34A
and 34B were minor, inadvertent and in their totality did not materially affect the declared
results. They urged the court to find that the petitioners had not substantiated the claim that
the said irregularities affected at least 7 million votes.
According to the first and second Respondents, the rejected votes did not account for 2.6
per cent of the total votes cast as contended by the Petitioners. They submitted instead that
the total number of rejected ballots was 81,685 as declared in Form34C, a percentage of 0.54
per cent of the votes cast. They thus argued that the rejected ballots were properly excluded
from valid votes in accordance with the law.
The 3rd Respondent in addition to the above argued that a party seeking the nullification of
a presidential election bears the burden of proving that not only was there non-compliance
with the election law but that the non-compliance also affected the results of the election.
He thus submitted that the only way the Petitioners could impugn the results reflected in
Forms 34A and 34B was by demonstrating either that legal votes were rejected or that illegal
votes were allowed and that this had an effect on the election.
Following the Petitioner’s application at the pre-trial stage, the Court granted an order for
scrutiny and access on terms that the Petitioners and the 3rd Respondent were to attain read
only access to the certified photocopies of the original Forms 34As 34Bs and 34Cs prepared
at and obtained from the polling stations by Presiding Officers and used to generate the
final vote tally; to the Forms 34A, 34B and 34C from all 40,800 polling stations; and to the
scanned and transmitted copies of all Forms 34A and 34B.
The scrutiny process was conducted under the supervision of the Registrar of the Supreme
Court and a report was filed.
The Registrar made the following observations:
a) Certain forms 34As appeared to have been duplicated;

b) Certain forms 34As and 34Bs appeared to be carbon copies;
c) Certain forms 34As and 34Bs appeared to be photocopies;
d) Some of the forms had no evidence of being stamped or signed.
It was recorded that out of the 291 Forms 34B scrutinized, 56 forms bore no watermark,
five forms had not been signed by the returning officer, 31 forms had no serial numbers, 32
forms had not been signed by the respective party agents, “hand over” Section of 189 forms
had not been filled and the “take over” Section of 287 forms had not been filled. Further,
a random scrutiny of 4,299 Forms 34A across five Counties was undertaken to check and
confirm, whether the forms bore the watermarks and the serial numbers; whether the forms
had been signed and stamped by the presiding officers; whether there was involvement of
the party agents.
Some of the issues emanating from the scrutiny of Forms 34A were that:
a) some forms were carbon copies;

b) others were the original Forms 34As but did not bear the IEBC stamp;
c) other forms were stamped and scanned while others were photocopies; and
d) others had not been signed.
The report further indicated that out of the 4,299 Forms 34As, 481 were carbon copies, but
signed, 157 were carbon copies and were not signed; 269 were original copies that were
not signed; 26 of the Forms were stamped and scanned. One form was scanned and not
stamped; 15 had not been signed by agents, 58 were photo copies of which 46 were not
signed; and 11 had no watermark security feature.
The petitioners contended that the report had proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the
election process was not free and fair. They contended that the Form 34C which was used to
announce the presidential results had no security feature and hence the authenticity of the
results could not be guaranteed.
Issues by Majority (D Maraga; P Mwilu; Wanjala, & I Lenaola)

i. What amounts to the burden of proof in a presidential election petition?
ii. To which party does the burden of proof lie and what are the circumstances under
which the evidential burden of proof shifts?
iii. What is the standard of proof required in an election petition?
iv. What is the meaning of the words “votes”, “cast” and “ballot papers?”
v. The place of valid versus rejected votes in a Presidential Election in Kenya.
vi. The meaning of “votes cast” to be taken into account in the computation to determine
the threshold of 50percent +1 under Article 138(4) of the Constitution.
vii. What was the proper interpretation of Section 83 of the Elections Act; whether the
two limbs in the provision (compliance with the law on elections, and irregularities
that may affect the result of the election) were conjunctive or disjunctive?
viii. What are the principles of free and fair elections?
ix. Whether the 2017 Presidential Election was conducted in accordance with the
principles laid down in the Constitution and the written law relating to elections.
x. Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision in the case of Maina Kiai provided a
justification for declaring the results of the election of the president by the National
Returning officers without reference to Forms 34A.
xi. Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Maina Kiai relieved the first
Respondent from its statutory responsibility of electronically transmitting in the
prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election for the president from a polling
station to the CTC and to the NTC in accordance with Section 39(1C) of the Elections
Act.
xii. Whether there were irregularities and illegalities committed in the conduct of the
2017 Presidential Election and if in the affirmative, what was their impact, on the
integrity of the election?
xiii. What is the meaning of the term ‘undue influence’ in the context of an electoral
malpractice and particularly as used under Section 10 of the Election Offences Act?
xiv. Whether the Supreme Court could adjudicate on an issue which was still the subject
of judicial determination at the High Court.
JB Ojwang (Dissenting)
i) Whether the Petition was based on facts; whether the petitioners discharged the
burden of proof and whether the respondents discharged the evidential burden.
ii) Whether the Presidential election was so badly conducted, administered and
managed that it failed to comply with the governing principles established under
the Constitution and the electoral laws.
iii) Whether the presidential election contravened the principles of free and fair
elections under Article 81(e) of the Constitution as read with Section 39 of the
Elections Act.
iv) Whether the petitioners’ claims in the petition formed a basis for annulling the
outcome of the Presidential election held on August 8, 2017.
v) Did the applicable electoral laws affect the Presidential election differently from
the manner in which it affected the other five sets of elections held on the same
date?
N S Ndungu SCJ (Dissenting)
i. Whether election petitions are right centric or form centric.

ii. Whether the 2017 Presidential Election was conducted in accordance with the
principles laid down in the Constitution and the law relating to elections.
iii. Whether the 3rd Respondent was validly and properly elected to the office of
President of the Republic of Kenya.
iv. What was the import of Section 39, 44 and 44A as far as transmission of election
results was concerned?
v. Whether technology was a mandatory component of Kenya’s electoral transmission
process.
vi. What is the distinction between the legal burden and the evidentiary burden of proof
in election petitions?
vii. Whether there was an express statutory requirement that imposed an obligation on
the first Respondent to avail forms 34A and 34B.
viii. What is the effect of reversing the electoral jurisprudence already settled by the
Supreme Court and applied across the country at all levels of Kenya’s judicial system?
ix. Where there is a conflict between constitutional fundamental freedoms and the
directive principles in the Constitution, which one prevails?
x. What is the proper test for verification of an electoral process?
The holding of the majority
1. The common law concept of burden of proof (onus probandi) is a question of law
which can be described as the duty which lies on one or the other of the parties
either to establish a case or to establish the facts upon a particular issue. The law
places the common law principle of onus probandi on the person who asserts a fact to
prove it. Section 107 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 of the Laws of Kenya, legislates that
principle in the words: “Whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal
right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that
those facts exist.”
2. An applicant who seeks to annul an election bears the legal burden of proof
throughout. Thus, a pPetitioner who seeks the nullification of an election on account
of non-conformity with the law or on the basis of irregularities must adduce cogent
and credible evidence to prove those grounds to the satisfaction of the court.
3. Though the legal and evidential burden of establishing the facts and contentions
which will support a party’s case is static and remains constant throughout a trial
with the plaintiff, however, depending on the effectiveness with which he or she
discharges that, the evidential burden keeps shifting and its position at any time is
determined by answering the question as to who would lose if no further evidence
was introduced.
4. Once the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner has adduced sufficient evidence to
warrant impugning an election, if not controverted, then the evidentiary burden
shifts to the respondent, in most cases the electoral body, to adduce evidence
rebutting that assertion and demonstrating that there was compliance with the law
or, if the ground is one of irregularities, that they did not affect the results of the
election.
5. In electoral disputes, the standard of proof remains higher than the balance of
probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt and where allegations of
criminal or quasi criminal nature are made, it is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Electoral disputes are not ordinary civil proceedings, hence reference to them as sui
generis. It must be ascertainable, based on the evidence on record, that the allegations
made are more probable to have occurred than not.
6. It was imperative that the meaning of the phrase “votes cast” in Article 138(4) be
clearly understood. The meaning of the word ‘cast’ was not disputed. In elections,
the term refers to the ballot papers inserted into ballot boxes. There was however a
dispute as to the correct meaning of the term “votes.” Neither the Kenyan Constitution
nor the Elections Act defined the term “vote.” The Elections Act, however, defined
the term “voter” to mean “a person whose name is included in a current register of
voters
7. From the definitions, particularly the one in the Black’s Law Dictionary referring
to a vote as “the expression of one’s preference or option”, the distinction between
a ballot paper and a vote is clearly discernible. A ballot paper is the instrument in
which a voter records his choice, while a vote is the actual choice made by a voter. A
ballot paper does not become a vote by merely being inserted into the ballot box, as
it may later turn out to be rejected.
8. There was nothing in the Constitutional Review Commission’s Report or in the
Parliamentary Hansard Report giving the basis for the change from “valid votes cast”
in Section 5(3)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya, Repealed to “votes cast” in Article
138(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Consequently, the Court’s view in the 2013
Raila Odinga case would be maintained.
9. The Court in the 2013 Raila Odinga case, did not render an authoritative interpretation
of Section 83 of the Elections Act as read together with the relevant provisions of the
Constitution.
10. There were clearly two limbs to various provisions from comparative jurisdictions that
were similar to Section 83 of the Kenyan Elections Act: compliance with the law on
elections, and irregularities that may affect the result of the election. The issue in the
interpretation of the provisions was whether or not the two limbs were conjunctive
or disjunctive. It was unequivocally clear that, the use of the term ‘and’ in the cited
English provisions rendered the two limbs conjunctive under the English law. Save
for minor changes, the conjunctive norm in the two limbs of the provision as captured
in the two English provisions appeared to have been borrowed lock, stock and barrel
by many Commonwealth countries, notably Nigeria, Ghana, Zambia, Tanzania and
Uganda to mention but a few. However, under both the repealed National Assembly
and Presidential Elections Act (Section 28) and the current Elections Act (Section 83)
the term used was “or” instead of “and” that appears in the English Acts. The use of
the word “or” clearly made the two limbs disjunctive under the Kenyan law. It was,
therefore, important that, while interpreting Section 83 of the Kenyan Elections Act,
that distinction is borne in mind.
11. Section 83 of the Kenyan Elections Act was different from other countries in
two other fundamental aspects. First, the Kenyan Act did not have the word
‘substantially’ which was in many of the provisions of other countries. Secondly,
and fundamentally, in 2011, the Elections Act (No. 24 of 2011) was enacted and
repealed the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act. Section 83 of the new
Elections Act, to harmonize it with the Constitution of Kenya 2010, added that to
be valid, the conduct of the elections in Kenya must comply ‘with the principles
laid down in the Constitution.’ That addition was purposive given that the Repealed
Constitution of Kenya, did not contain any constitutional principles relating to
elections. In interpreting the Section therefore, the Court had to first pay due regard
to the meaning and import of the constitutional principles it envisaged.
12. Guided by the principles of statutory interpretation, and given the use of the word
“or” in Section 83 of the Elections Act, as well as some of the Supreme Court’s
previous decisions, the Court could not conjunctively apply the two limbs of that
Section and demand that to succeed, a Petitioner must not only prove that the conduct
of the election violated the principles in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 as well as
other written law on elections but that he must also prove that the irregularities or
illegalities complained of affected the result of the election.
13. The issue as to how Section 83 of the Elections Act ought to be interpreted by a court
of law in determining the validity or otherwise of an election was authoritatively
settled by the Supreme Court in Gatirau Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Githinji and
2 others (2014) eKLR. An election should be conducted substantially in accordance
with the principles of the Constitution, as set out in Article 81(e). Voting is to be
conducted in accordance with the principles set out in Article 86. The Elections
Act and the Regulations thereunder, constitute the substantive and procedural
law for the conduct of elections. If it demonstrated that an election was conducted
substantially in accordance with the principles of the Constitution and the Election
Act, then such election is not to be invalidated only on ground of irregularities.
Where, however, it is shown that the irregularities were of such magnitude that they
affected the election result, then such an election stands to be invalidated. Otherwise,
procedural or administrative irregularities and other errors occasioned by human
imperfection are not enough, by and of themselves, to vitiate an election. Where an
election is conducted in such a manner as demonstrably violates the principles of the
Constitution and the law, such an election stands to be invalidated.
14. Section 83 of the Elections Act applied to the presidential election petitions as it did
to all other election disputes. Guided by the principles in Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of
the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 as well as the authorities referred to, the two limbs
in Section 83 of the Elections Act could not be given a conjunctive interpretation. The
two limbs of Section 83 of the Elections Act should be applied disjunctively. In the
circumstances, a Petitioner who is able to satisfactorily prove either of the two limbs
of the Section can void an election. In other words, a Petitioner who is able to prove
that the conduct of the election in question substantially violated the principles
laid down in the Constitution as well as other written law on elections, will on that
ground alone, void an election. He will also be able to void an election if he is able
to prove that although the election was conducted substantially in accordance with
the principles laid down in Kenya’s Constitution as well as other written law on
elections, it was fraught with irregularities or illegalities that affected the result of
the election.
15. An election such as the one at hand, has to be one that is both quantitatively and
qualitatively in accordance with the Constitution. It is one where the winner of the
presidential contest obtains more than half of all the votes cast in the election and at
least twenty-five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties
,as stipulated in Article 138(4) of the Constitution. In addition, the election which
gives rise to that result must be held in accordance with the principles of a free and
fair elections, which are by secret ballot, free from intimidation, improper influence,
or corruption, and administered by an independent body in an impartial, neutral,
efficient, accurate and accountable manner as stipulated in Article 81. Besides the
principles in the Constitution that govern elections, Section 83 of the Elections Act
required that elections be ‘conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in
that written law. The most important written law on elections was the Elections Act
itself.
16. Having considered the opposing positions, the contentions by the first and second
Respondents ignored two important factors. One, that elections were not only about
numbers as many, even prominent lawyers, would like the country to believe. Even
in numbers, to arrive at a mathematical solution, there is always a computational
path one has to take, as proof that the process indeed gives rise to the stated solution.
Elections are not events but processes. Elections are not isolated events, but are part
of a holistic process of democratic transition and good governance.
17. The polling station is the true locus for the free exercise of the voters’ will. The
counting of the votes as elaborately set out in the Act and the Regulations, with
its open, transparent and participatory character using the ballot as the primary
material, means, as it must, that the count is clothed with a finality not to be exposed
to any risk of variation or subversion.
18. Neither the first nor the second Respondent had offered any plausible response to
the question as to whether all Forms 34A had been electronically transmitted to the
National Tallying Center (NTC) as required by Section 39 (1C) of the Elections Act.
What remained uncontroverted however was the admission that as of 14th August
2017, three days after the declaration of results, the first Respondent was not in a
position to supply the Petitioner with all Forms 34A.
19. The understanding of the process was that the figures keyed into the KIEMS
corresponded with those on the scanned images of Forms 34A. it was therefore dificult
to understand why those figures, which counsel referred to as mere “statistics”
that did not go into the determination of the outcome of the results, differed. In the
circumstances, bearing in mind that IEBC had the custody of the record of elections,
the burden of proof shifted to it to prove that it had complied with the law in the
conduct of the presidential election especially on the transmission of the presidential
election results and it failed to discharge that burden.
20. IEBC, in particular failed to allow access to two critical areas of their servers: its logs
which would have proved or disproved the Petitioners’ claim of hacking into the
system and altering the presidential election results and its servers with Forms 34A
and 34B electronically transmitted from polling stations and County Tallying Centers
(CTCs). Those were the Forms that Section 39(1C) specifically required to be scanned
and electronically transmitted to the CTCs and the NTC. In other words, the order of
scrutiny was a golden opportunity for IEBC to place before Court evidence to debunk
the Petitioners’ said claims. If IEBC had nothing to hide, even before the Order
was made, it would have itself readily provided access to its ICT logs and servers to
disprove the Petitioners’ claims. However, the IEBC contumaciously disobeyed the
Order in the critical areas.
21. Failure to comply with a lawful demand, leave alone a specific court order, left the
Court with no option but to draw an adverse inference against the party refusing to
comply. The Petitioners claimed that while 15,558,038 people voted for the presidential
candidates, 15,098,646 voted for gubernatorial candidates and 15,008,818 voted for
Members of Parliament (MPs) raising questions as to the validity of the extra votes in
the presidential election. No satisfactory answer was given and the first Respondent
was responsible for that unexplained yet important issue.
22. The transmission of results was done in a manner inconsistent with the expectations
of Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act. The principles in Articles 81 and 86 of the
Constitution had the expectations of transparency, accountability, simplicity,
security, accuracy, efficiency and especially, verifiability of the electoral process.
23. Verifiability must have had strong significance in the 8th August Election, because the
presiding officers were required to verify the polling station’s results in the presence
of polling agents before sending them to the CTC and NTC using the KIEMS KIT.
The Maina Kiai decision, made it clear that Form 34A being the primary document,
became the basis for all subsequent verifications.
24. The critical element under Article 138 (3) (c) of the Constitution was the duty placed
upon the Commission to verify the results before declaring them. To ensure that the
results declared were the ones recorded at the polling station. Not to vary, change or
alter the results.
25. The duty to verify in Article 138 was squarely placed upon the first Respondent. That
duty ran from the polling station to the constituency level and finally, to the National
Tallying Centre. There was no disjuncture in the performance of the duty to verify. It
was exercised by the various agents or officers of the first Respondent, that is to say,
the presiding officer at a polling station, the returning officer at the constituency
level, and the Chair at the National Tallying Centre.
26. The verification process at all those levels was elaborately provided for in the Elections
Act, and the Regulations thereunder. The simultaneous electronic transmission of
results from the polling station to the Constituency and National Tallying Centre,
was not only intended to facilitate that verification process, but also acted as an
insurance against, potential electoral fraud by eliminating human intervention/
intermeddling in the results tallying chain. The system did this by ensuring that
there was no variance between, the declared results and the transmitted ones.
27. In the presidential election of August 8, 2017 however, the picture that emerged,
was that things did not follow that elaborate, but clear constitutional and legislative
road map. It had been established that at the time the second Respondent declared
the final results for the election of the President on August 11, 2017, not all results
as tabulated in Forms 34A, had been electronically and simultaneously transmitted
from the polling stations, to the National Tallying Centres. The second Respondent
could not therefore be said to have verified the results before declaring them.
28. The said verification could only have been possible if, before declaring the results,
the second Respondent had checked the aggregated tallies in Forms 34B against the
scanned Forms 34A as transmitted in accordance with Section 39 (1C) of the Elections
Act. Given the fact that all Forms 34 B were generated from the aggregates of Forms
34A, there could be no logical explanation as to why, in tallying the Forms 34B into
the Form 34C, the primary document (Form 34A), was completely disregarded.
29. The failure by the first Respondent to verify the results, in consultation with the
second Respondent, before the latter declared them, therefore went against the
expectation of Article 138(3) (c) of the Constitution, just as the failure to electronically
and simultaneously transmit the results from all the polling stations to the National
Tallying Centre, violated the provisions of Section 39 (1C) of the Elections Act. Those
violations of the Constitution and the law, called into serious doubt as to whether the
said election could be said to have been a free expression of the will of the people as
contemplated by Article 38 of the Constitution.
30. The Maina Kiai case did not restrain the first Respondent from verifying the results
before declaring them, or relieve the former from the statutory duty of electronically
transmitting the results. What the second Respondent was barred from doing by the
Court of Appeal and the High Court was to vary, alter, or change the results relayed
to the National Tallying Centre from the polling stations and Constituency Tallying
Centres, under the guise of verifying.
31. Article 86 of the Constitution placed upon the first Respondent the onerous
responsibility of devising and deploying election systems that the voter could
understand. The first Respondent must further be expected to provide access to
crucial information that could enable either a candidate or a voter to cross check the
results declared by it with a view to determining, the integrity and accuracy thereof.
In other words, “the numbers must just add up” even where Parliament found it
necessary to make provision for a complementary system, it would not escape from
the dictates of Article 86 of the Constitution, hence Section 44A of the Elections Act.
32. The Petitioners had discharged the legal burden of proving that the second
Respondent, declared the final results for the election of the president, before the
first Respondent had received all the results from Forms 34A from all the 40,883
polling stations contrary to the Constitution and the applicable electoral law. The
second Respondent, declared, the said results solely, on the basis of Forms 34B,
some of which were of dubious authenticity. The first Respondent in disregard of
the provisions of Section 39 (1C), of the Elections Act, either failed, or neglected to
electronically transmit, in the prescribed form, the tabulated results of an election of
the president, from many polling stations to the National Tallying Centre.
33. The 2017 presidential election was, therefore, not conducted in accordance with the
principles laid down in the Constitution and the written law on elections in that it
was, inter alia, neither transparent nor verifiable. On that ground alone, and on the
basis of the interpretation given to Section 83 of the Elections Act, the Presidential
election had to be nullified.
34. The first Respondent had submitted that the question whether he was allegedly
sponsoring the advertisement of the government’s achievement in the print and
electronic media was pending at the High Court and the Petitioners did not contest
that averment. The Supreme Court could not adjudicate on an issue which was still
the subject of judicial determination at the High Court. Accordingly, Section 23
could not be found unconstitutional.
35. A number of conclusions/observations could be made from the scrutiny exercise
ordered by the court: First, the Form 34C, that was availed for scrutiny was not
original. Whereas the copy availed for scrutiny was certified as a copy original, no
explanation was forthcoming to account for the whereabouts of the original Form.
Regulation 87(3) obligated the second Respondent to tally and complete Form 34C
and to sign and date the forms and make available a copy to any candidate or chief
agent present. That regulation presupposed that the Chairman retained the original.
The second Respondent was required to avail the original Form 34C for purposes of
access and to that extent the second Respondent did not.
36. Second, Not every irregularity, not every infraction of the law is enough to nullify
an election.
37. IEBC did not conduct the August 8, 2017 presidential election in conformity with
the Constitution and electoral law. Irregularities and illegalities were also committed
in a manner inconsistent with the requirement that the electoral system ought to
be inter alia simple, verifiable, efficient, accurate and accountable. Although the
Petitioners claimed that various electoral offences were committed by the officials
of the first Respondent (IEBC) no evidence was placed before the court to prove this
allegation. What was in evidence was a systemic institutional problem and there was
no specific finger prints of individuals who may have played a role in commission of
illegalities. It was therefore not possible to impute any criminal intent or culpability
on either the first and second Respondent, or any other commissioner or member
of the first Respondent. There was also no evidence of misconduct on the part of the
3rd Respondent.
Petition allowed.
(i) A declaration issued that the Presidential Election held on 8th August, 2017 was not
conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the applicable law rendering
the declared result invalid, null and void;
(ii) A declaration issued that the irregularities and illegalities in the Presidential election
of 8th August, 2017 were substantial and significant that they affected the integrity
of the election, the results notwithstanding.
(iii) A declaration issued that the 3rd Respondent was not validly declared as the
President elect and that the declaration is invalid, null and void;
(iv) An Order issued directing the first Respondent to organize and conduct a fresh
Presidential Election in strict conformity with the Constitution and the applicable
election laws within 60 days of the determination of first September 2017 under
Article 140(3) of the Constitution.
(v) Each party to bear its own costs.
Dissenting opinion of J B Ojwang, SCJ:
1. Under Article 20(4) (a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, just like the other
Courts, was under obligation to promote the values that underlay an open and
democratic society based on human dignity, equality, equity and freedom. The
Supreme Court, just like the other Courts, in the course of performing its safeguarded
interpretive mandate, was under obligation to be guided by the principles; that justice
should be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, and that
the purpose and principles of the Constitution should be protected and promoted.
2. The Constitution enjoined all courts, in the exercise of their interpretive mandate, to
adhere to certain well-defined paths:
(a) a manner that promotes the Constitution’s purposes, values and principles;
(b) a manner that advances the rule of law, the human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the Bill of Rights;
(c) a manner that contributes to good governance.
The foregoing prescriptions, in the context of the exercise of the people’s electoral
rights as took place on August 8, 2017, were the firm foundation upon which the
dissent opinion from the majority was founded. The majority decision had not only
done short shrift to the governing terms of the Constitution, but also failed to adhere
to the clear path of the law which had evolved, including the Court’s precedents on
electoral law.
3. The judicial approach in the sphere of electoral law is obviously inseparable from
the Constitution’s values and the principles of democracy. It thus behoves the Court
to pay due deference to the fundamentals of the sets of cases that have, in the last
several years, been determined by the Supreme Court, on the subject of elections –
including Presidential elections. Such is, quite conclusively, the most dependable
course of the law that Kenya’s lawyers should engage, in the first place.
4. The relevant clause of the Constitution must be taken through an analytical process,
and subjected to definite categorizations which crystalized the specific concepts and
elements said to have been violated. By that criterion, most of the contentions of the
Petitioners in the instant case, on account of their broad generality, would not stand.
The interpretive task, as it related to the adjectival essence of the law, was inherently
professional – and was reflected in the concept of jurisprudence, which dealt with
thought about law.
5. The Court, in the normal performance of its role under the Constitution, is engaged in
the specialized process of jurisprudence. It follows that the more immediate, urgent
and primary motions of basic policy-making, inherently devolves to the political
arms of the State, rather than the more specialized entity which is the Judiciary.
Dissenting opinion of S.N Ndungu SCJ.
1. Evidence is the epicenter of any trial. The nature of a presidential election petition
does not displace the basis of the law of evidence outlined in the Law of Evidence
Act, Section 80 of the Elections Act, 2011 expressed that among the powers of
an election court in exercise of its jurisdiction was: summoning and swearing
in witnesses in the same manner, or as nearly as circumstance admitted, as in a
trial by a Court in exercise of its civil jurisdiction. As per Article 163 (3)(a), the
proceedings before the Supreme Court, although regulated by the Supreme Court
Act, 2012 and the attendant Presidential Election Petition Rules, 2017 allowed
reliance on affidavit evidence. In order for that evidence to bear cogent value, it
had to meet the demands of proof.
2. Electoral processes have assumed a fair presumption of correctness. To rebut the

presumption, one requires proof, to a high degree, that the resulting declaration
is not trustworthy. That is drawn from the democratic legitimacy accorded to
elections by the Constitution. The test of invalidating an election has to be a
clear one. A new election ought to be conducted only when voters have been
completely prevented from accurately registering their intended preference
in numbers sufficient to affect the outcome. A determination to hold a fresh
election in terms of Article 140(3) should only be made if the following questions
are considered, analyzed and determined conclusively:
(i) Was the final outcome of the election the result of fraud, mistake or omission
which precluded the certified vote total from correctly aggregating all voters’
independent, non-coerced and non-procured preferences?
(ii) Is the outcome incapable of being trusted to reflect the will of the people?
(iii) Can a reliable outcome be determined in a manner other than holding a fresh
election?
3. The majority based their decision on an interpretation of Section 83 of the

Elections Act and in doing so they had read-in the provisions of Articles 81
and 86 of the Constitution. They stated that the electoral process had not met
the requirements as listed in those Articles. That was a narrow and restrictive
interpretation of the law. The majority in doing so, limited itself to operational
and aspirational constitutional principles but failed to address the substratum
of the issue at hand, the grund norm of the Constitution, the sovereignty of the
people and the centrality of the people in the entire architecture of the 2010
Constitution, but secondly used a restrictive test in assessing whether a claim
that the right to vote had been violated in any way had been made.
4. In interpreting and applying any provision of the Constitution, the Elections Act
and Regulations, the Supreme Court must adopt an interpretation that promotes
the grund norm in Article 1 and the right to vote in Article 38.
5. A reading of the majority decision appeared to presume that the only test for
ascertaining the credibility of the election process, or more correctly for assessing
any violation of the rights under Article 38, lay in Articles 81 and 86. That was not
the case. Articles 82 and 83 also went to the specifics of the electoral process that
supported the right under Article 38. Article 82 and 83 addressed the registration
of voters and 83 underlined the requirements of the voting exercise itself as
simple, accurate, and taking into account those with special needs. Article
83(3) provided clearly that administrative arrangements for the registration of
voters and the conduct of elections had to be designed to facilitate and would
not deny, an eligible citizen the rights to vote or stand for election. The upshot
being that the test for assessing a violation claim under Article 38 had to be more
comprehensive than the aspirational guidelines set under Articles 81 and 86.
Cherry-picking constitutional provisions to determine a right-centric cause on
the basis of formal considerations the choice of form over rights undermined a
purposive approach to the interpretation and application of the Constitution.
6. A proper test for verification of an electoral process must always prioritize the
primary instrument for declaration of the result or outcome of the voters’ choice.
The voter is identified at the Polling station, he votes at the polling station, ballots
are counted at the polling station. The agents, candidates, observers are allowed
access into the polling stations to verify the inner sanctum of the voice of the
electorate, the altar of the voter‘s choice. What happens there is what determines
the parameters of verification. Any doubt as to the credibility or integrity of the
election has to be tested against the various layers of verification, including
the election material in the custody of the Returning Officer. A single want of
form in the elaborate scheme of verification could not be a basis for nullifying a
Presidential Election.
7. The first and second Respondents satisfactorily demonstrated that the electoral
process was conducted in accordance with the directions of the Court of Appeal in
the Maina Kiai case. Processes that had been put in place before the determination
by the Court of Appeal declaring Section 39(2) and (3) of the Elections Act, 2011
and Regulation 87 (2)(c) unconstitutional were adjusted to:
(a) eliminate “provisional results” and
(b) adjust Form 34C to reflect a collation of Forms 34B from the Constituency
Returning Officers who had verified and tabulated the final results from the
polling stations in Forms 34A.
The declaration by the second Respondent of the results of the election per County
was in keeping with the constitutional requirement that the candidate declared
elected as President received at least twenty-five per cent of the votes cast in each of
more than half of the Counties.
8. Where a petitioner imputed electoral offences on the part of the returned

candidate, the burden of proof lay on the petitioner to prove the commission
of the electoral offences by the returned candidate or by his agents or by other
persons with his consent, which claim had to be supported by cogent evidence,
bare allegations, without more, that the offence was committed would not suffice.
If the evidence supplied failed to meet the set standard the petition had to fail.
9. The petitioner made did not discharge the onus of proof in most of the allegations.
The first and second Respondents were not in contempt of the Supreme Court‘s
orders and there was no basis to nullify the presidential election on the basis
of any information revealed or otherwise in the report. The allegations of
inconsistency in forms 34A and 34B was verifiable using the existing paper-trail,
which was also in the possession of the petitioner having requested the Court
vide a letter dated August 23 2017 and the entire set of primary records provided
in scanned form on August 24 2017. As such, an order for nullification based on
this exercise that was merely based on controvertible and speculative grounds,
and is well below the standards set for nullifying an election, especially, where
other remedies, such as inspection of ballots, exist.
10. The petition contained numerous allegations of irregularity, illegality and

electoral offences, which, if proved, to the required burden and standard, and if it
affected the result to void the Presidential election. The allegations were however
not proved. Where evidence was adduced, there was sufficient evidence to rebut
the allegations.
11. The majority nullified the conduct of the Presidential elections solely on the basis
that some forms 34A and 34B lacked security features, which were elected by the
Commission and spread in different versions across most forms. The majority,
in the aftermath of the registrar‘s report did not even attempt to peruse the
enormous evidence deposited by the first and second Respondents bearing
certified copies of Forms 34A and 34B of the Constitution and against which they
ought to have checked the alleged irregularities. By subjecting the integrity of the
election to considerations of design, that were neither statutory nor regulatory,
the Majority had not only threatened the people‘s belief in the electoral system,
it had overburdened and in fact, negated the electorate‘s right to franchise.
12. In election causes, the majority ought to have disengaged the mechanical gear
of appellate jurisdiction and fully considered the evidence against the dictates of
the burden and standard of proof. The absence of time is not a sufficient excuse.
The Court had a competent institution of research and was well facilitated to be
able to perform the role of an election Court as a final verifying agent in cases of
monumental importance such as the present Petition.
13. Had the majority been engaged in the mode of a Court of exclusive original
jurisdiction, it would have found that each and every allegation in the petition
was addressed to a satisfactory standard and where and if, the burden of proof
shifted, the Commission discharged it satisfactorily.
Petition should have been dismissed with costs.
4.2 DECISIONS EMANATING FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
4.2.1 The Jurisdiction of Magistrates’ Courts to hear and determine Employment and Labour
Relations Claims and Environment and Land Matters
Law Society of Kenya, Nairobi Branch vs Malindi Law Society & 6 others [2017] eKLR
Civil Appeal No 287 of 2016
Brief of the case:
The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2015 introduced several amendments,
which were challenged on grounds of unconstitutionality. It amended the Environment
and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011 by allowing the Chief Justice to transfer judges from the
Environment and Land Court to the High Court and vice versa. Additionally, the Statute
Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2015, introduced amendments to Section 101 of the
Land Registration Act and Section 150 of the Land Act, allowing subordinate Courts to have
jurisdiction in environment and land matters.
The Magistrates’ Court Act No. 26 of 2015 was also the subject of a challenge on the
constitutionality of some of its provisions. Section 9 vested Magistrates’ Courts with the
jurisdiction to deal with environment and land matters as well as employment and labour
relations claims.
Generally, it was argued by the Malindi Law Society that environment and land matters as
well as employment and labour relations claims were within the exclusive jurisdiction of
specialized Courts which were of the same status as the High Court and were provided for
under Article 162(2) of the Constitution. The specialized Courts included the Environment
and Land Court and the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The High Court’s
judgment was to the effect that the provisions that allowed for transfer of judges from
specialized Courts to the High Court and those that granted subordinate Courts jurisdiction
to handle environment and land matters and employment and labour relations claims were
unconstitutional.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Law Society of Kenya Nairobi Branch, filed
an appeal at the Court of Appeal. During the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary issue arose.
The Malindi Law Society wanted the notices of appeal filed by branches of the Law Society
of Kenya struck out on grounds that those branches had no right of appeal as they were not
parties to the High Court proceedings.
1. Whether Respondents who were not party to High Court proceedings had the locus
standi to challenge the High Court’s decision at the Court of Appeal.
2. Whether provisions in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2015 which
allowed the Chief Justice to transfer judges from the Environment and Land Court to
the High Court and vice versa, were constitutional.
3. Whether Parliament, through legislation, could confer jurisdiction upon Magistrates’

Courts to hear and determine environment and land matters and also employment
and labour relations claims.
Held
1. The Law Society of Kenya was a party to the High Court proceedings but its branches
were not. Section 24 of the Law Society of Kenya Act introduced branches as organs of
the Law Society of Kenya. The branches were semi-autonomous, if not autonomous.
Sections 15 and 24(2) of the Law Society of Kenya Act did not suggest that they did not
have autonomy. The issues that the branches sought to raise in the appeal were in line
with Section 24(2) (a) of the Law Society of Kenya Act.
2. Under Article 3(1) of the Constitution, every person had the obligation to respect,
uphold and defend the Constitution. Article 260 of the Constitution defined a person
as including a company, association or other body of persons whether incorporated
or unincorporated. The right to institute proceedings to enforce fundamental rights
and freedoms was guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the right to
institute proceedings in order to defend the Constitution was guaranteed under Article
258(1) of the Constitution. Article 258(2) allows for the institution of proceedings by
a person acting on his own behalf, or as a member of or in the interests of a group or
class of persons, or in public interest or as an association acting in the interests of one
or more of its members.
3. Locus standi before a court of law would be possessed by any aggrieved party. Under
rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules, any person who desired to appeal to the court had
to give notice in writing, lodged in duplicate with the Registrar of the court. The rule
specifically dealt with a person who wished to appeal and not a party to the impugned
decision.
4. The provisions of rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Articles 22, 258 and 260 of
the Constitution were to the effect that a person, association, body corporate or an
unincorporated body, had the locus standi, not only to institute original proceedings
but also appellate proceedings provided that such a party was aggrieved by the
decision they intended to challenge. The Respondents fell within the provisions as they
asserted that the impugned decision negatively affected legal practice and the welfare
of their members. Article 259 of the Constitution provided that the Constitution ought
to be interpreted in a manner that promoted its purposes, values and principles,
advanced the rule of law and human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of
rights, permitted the development of the law and contributed to good governance.
The Constitution ought to also be interpreted in accordance with the doctrine that the
law is always speaking.
5. The Court was unable to interpret Article 162(2) of the Constitution as a provision
which limited the power of Parliament to confer jurisdiction on subordinate Courts
which were established under Article 169(1) (a), (b) and (c). Article 169(2) provided
that Parliament had to enact legislation conferring jurisdiction, functions and powers
on the subordinate Courts. A distinction ought to be drawn between the power granted
to Parliament under the Constitution to establish Courts, which was restricted, and
the power to confer jurisdiction on Courts. In enacting the Magistrates’ Court Act, as
stated in its preamble to give effect to Article 169(1) (a) of the Constitution, to confer
jurisdiction, functions and powers on the Magistrates’ Courts, Parliament did not
exceed its powers or act ultra vires.
6. Considering that appeals over the certain matters would lie with the specialized
Courts, conferring jurisdiction on Magistrates’ Courts to hear and determine those
matters would not diminish the specialization of specialized Courts. The doctrine of
judicial precedent would bind the Magistrates’ courts and would undoubtedly imprint
specialized jurisdiction on magistrates’ courts.
7. Devolution, access to services and access to justice are critical pillars of Kenya’s
constitutional architecture. Article 48 of the Constitution demanded that the State
had to ensure access to justice for all persons. One facet of that was the geographical
location of Courts and their proximity to the people that would be served by the Courts.
8. Kenya had more Magistrates’ Courts than specialized Courts or High Court stations.
The close proximity of Magistrates’ Courts to the people ensured efficiency and access
to justice at a reasonable cost. It would be illogical and unreasonable to prohibit
Magistrates’ Courts from determining land and employment disputes, when it was
undeniable that their reach to the citizenry was wider than that of specialized courts.
9. Had the framers of the Constitution intended to restrict Parliament’s power to enact
legislation conferring jurisdiction on magistrates’ courts with respect to disputes
relating to employment and labour relations and the environment and land matters,
the restriction would have been provided for expressly.
10. Under Article 165(5) of the Constitution, the High Court would not have jurisdiction in
respect of matters reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
the Constitution or those falling within the jurisdiction of the specialized Courts
contemplated in Article 162(2) of the Constitution. The provision did not say that the
matters, in the case of specialized Courts were reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction
of those Courts, it stated that the matters fell within the jurisdiction of the specialized
Courts.
11. Although Article 162(2) of the Constitution mandated Parliament to establish Courts with
the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to employment
and labour relations and environment and the use and occupation of, and title to land,
that in itself did not confer exclusive jurisdiction to those specialized Courts to hear
and determine the specified types of cases.
Appeal partly allowed.
4.2.2 Whether a Judge can be sued in a course of action arising from the lawful performance of
his or her judicial functions and whether judicial immunity is absolute
Bellevue Development Company Ltd vs Hon. Mr. Justice Francis Gikonyo, Hon. Mr. Justice Charles
Kariuki & 6 Others Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2016
Brief of the case
Bellevue Development Company (the applicant) appeared before Hon. Mr. Justice Charles
Kariuki J, seeking review of orders of Hon. Mr. Justice Francis Gikonyo J. which held that
its arbitral proceedings with Vinayak Builders (the Respondent) before an arbitrator Mr.
Norman Mururu (Deceased) were terminated and that the subsequent appointment of
another arbitrator Mr. Paul Mwaniki Gachoka was proper in accordance with the Arbitration
Act, No.4 of 1995 (Cap 49).
The application was opposed by the respondent on the grounds that the matter was res-
judicata and that the court was divested of such jurisdiction as the learned Judge Kariuki J,
could not sit on an appeal on the decision of a fellow judge (Gikonyo J) with a concurrent
jurisdiction. The learned Judge (Kariuki J) agreed with the respondent and dismissed the
application as incompetent for lack of jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by the decisions of the two Judges, the applicant filed Petition No. 371 of 2016
before the High Court Commercial & Admiralty Division (Ochieng J) suing the two Judges,
Hon. Mr. Justice Francis Gikonyo J and Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Kariuki J, alleging among
others that:
i. The two Judges acted in bad faith and unlawfully in rendering their Rulings on
18th March 2014, 08th April 2014 and 8th April 2016 respectively in High Court at
Nairobi, Milimani Commercial & Admiralty Division, Civil Suit number 571 of 2011
(O.S) and to that extent are not clothed with the immunity granted under Article 160
(5);
ii. By their collective rulings, the two judges breached the petitioner’s Right, to have
its dispute with the respondent, determined by the application of law in a fair and
transparent manner;
iii. That the cumulative actions of the two judges breached the respondent’s right to
equal protection and benefit of the law;
iv. That the Judges’ individual and collective actions effectively took away the
respondent’s property unlawfully thus breaching its rights under Article 40 of the
Constitution of Kenya;
The Court from the onset observed that both of the Judges had been sued in their capacities
as Judges of the High Court and that the petition made it clear that the foundation upon
which the Judges had been sued were their respective rulings, which they pronounced in the
case Bellevue Development Company Limited Vs Vinayak Builders Limited & Another, HCCC No.
571 Of 2010 (O.S). In the circumstances the suit against the judges arose out of the judicial
functions.
On that basis, and before the matter was set down for hearing, the two Judges raised a
preliminary objection contending that the petition could not stand as its very prosecution
would constitute a violation of the judicial immunity of the two Judges. Specifically, the
judges argued that the petition was incompetent, as it sought to question why and how
judges carried out their respective judicial functions.
In opposing the objection, the respondent’ admitted that it was aware of the judicial
immunity accorded to the judges by the Constitution but countered that such immunity is
only available when judges perform lawful functions. According to the respondent, it is only
when a judge acts lawfully and in good faith that he would enjoy constitutional immunity
from being sued.
The relevant provision of the constitution is Article 160 (5) of the Constitution, which
stipulates as follows;
“A member of the Judiciary is not liable in an action or suit in respect of anything done
or omitted to be done in good faith in the lawful performance of a judicial function”.
After hearing the rival legal submissions on the question as to whether the Judges acted
lawfully or and good faith, the learned Judge (Ochieng J) first expressed himself on the
Jurisdiction limits and competency constraints he faced in this case by stating thus:
Para:
[11] In practical terms, when the court is called upon to determine whether or not a
Judge had acted lawfully and in good faith, the court would have to analyse both the
decision and the conduct of the Judge
[12] Both Judge Gikonyo and Judge Kariuki have jurisdictions concurrent to mine. It
would therefore follow that if I purported to arrogate to myself the authority to
review their decisions, the decision which I would make, would be a nullity…. I have
no jurisdiction to make a finding concerning the correctness or otherwise of their
decisions.
The Judge in this quest also considered the local jurisprudence in this case and carried out a
comparative analysis of the various scholarly writings and comparable judicial experience
in other commonwealth jurisdiction. Taking que from these sources and citing the cases of
G.B Kariuki vs Fred Akwasi Apaloo , Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1994, Lord Esher MR in Anderson
vs. Gorrie [1895]1QB 668 at 671, Lord Tenderden C,J in Garnett vs. Ferrand [1824-1834] ALL ER
244, Lord Denning MR in Sirro vs. Moore & Others [1974] 3 ALL ER 776 at 789, Lord Bridge Mc C
vs. Mullan & Others [1984] 3 ALL ER 908 at 916, the judge expounded on the principal of judicial
immunity in the following terms:-
Para [13] In my considered view, the task of ascertaining whether or not a Judge of concurrent
jurisdiction had acted in good faith or had acted lawfully, constitutes an evaluation,
which violates the judicial immunity conferred by the Constitution. The privilege is
not conditional, as suggested by the petitioner; it is absolute.
In his own words, the learned judged while dismissing the petition gave both a factual,
practical and legal reasons for judicial immunity by stating that:
“The rationale for the judicial immunity is to be found in the need for judicial officers
to make determinations without fear. I so hold because if a Judge was to be liable to
being sued for rendering decisions, he would always be scared that whatever decision
he makes, may lead to him being found liable if the decision was later challenged.
Yet, the whole world recognizes that Judges are not infallible. Indeed, it is for that
very reason that the legal systems worldwide have structures for appeals. And
in many jurisdictions it is also recognized that the highest Court in the appellate
structure, can make mistakes. Therefore, those courts have liberty to depart from
their own precedents. By setting up appellate structures or even by allowing the
highest appellate courts to depart from precedents, does not encourage courts to
make mistakes. It is simply a recognition of human fallibility.”
The petition was struck out as incompetent and fatally defective for violating the Judges’
judicial immunity and that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to enquire into the decisions
of the Judges or otherwise supervise the Judges who had equal status and jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court (Ochieng J), Bellevue Development Company
(herein the Appellant) proffered an appeal before the Court of Appeal faulting the learned
Judge, for among others:
i. Misinterpreting and misapplying the Constitution in relation to his jurisdiction, the

petition before him and the preliminary objection;
ii. Failing to hold that the rights and freedoms of the Bill of Rights can only be subject
to the limitations contemplated in the Constitution;
iii. Impairing (sic) the supremacy of and failing to defend and uphold the Constitution
in letter and spirit over other law;
iv. Limiting and impairing the nature and scope of his jurisdiction to entertain the
petition; and
v. Determining that judicial immunity is absolute even when judges act dishonestly.
At the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted that the central question
was whether judicial immunity under Article 160(5), is absolute, and he answered the
question in the negative. It was counsel’s contention that a suit can properly be instituted
against a judge if either or both of the two elements of good faith and lawfulness are lacking
from the act or omission complained of. He added that in the instant case, it was manifestly
clear that there was lack of good faith.
Opposing the appeal, joint counsels for the learned Judges and Vinayak Builders characterized
the petition as a direct attack on the independence of the Judiciary. They argued that the
real motive for the petition against the Judges was an attempt to create a basis for the re-
litigation of the award by the arbitrator in favour of the appellant. They pointed out that the
Judges were impleaded in their capacity as judicial officers but the appellant never pleaded
the particulars of the alleged bad faith in the entire petition. They urged that judges can and
do make mistakes and that is precisely why there exists an appellate process. It was their
argument that the petition was improperly inviting the learned Judge to supervise fellow
judges of equal status and jurisdiction.
Issues:
1. Whether a judge has jurisdiction to enquire into or review the propriety of the decisions
of a Judge who has concurrent jurisdiction.
2. Whether a Judge can be sued in the course of action arising from his/her judicial work
and whether Judicial Immunity is absolute.
Held:
Per Kiage JA, in the lead judgment:
1. A judge of the High Court had no jurisdiction to enquire into or review the propriety of
the decisions of the Judges, who were of concurrent jurisdiction as himself;
2. In our system of courts, which is hierarchical in nature, judges of concurrent
jurisdiction do not possess supervisory jurisdiction over each other. No judge of the
High Court can superintend over fellow judges of that court or of the superior courts
of equal status. That much is plain common sense;
3. The learned Judge reasoned, correctly in Justice Kiage’s view, that an enquiry into the
complaints in the appellant’s petition against the Judges called upon him to determine
the lawfulness or good faith basis of both their decisions and their conduct, and he
could not purport to arrogate to himself the power to review their decisions over
which he had no authority.
4. It would be a strange aberration for a judge to embark on what is essentially an
examination of the judicial conduct and pronouncements of judges of the same status
as himself, a task that is left to courts and judges of higher status in the hierarchy, by
way of appeals.
5. Justice Kiage no difficulty whatsoever in holding that judicial officers are under
Article 160(5) immunized from any action or suit on account of their performance of
a judicial function. I do not apprehend that the words “good faith” and “lawful” in
the sub-Article are a qualification or limitation of the immunity for the rather obvious
reason that so long as a judge is acting in a judicial capacity and exercising his usual
jurisdiction, there is a commonsensical presumption that he is acting lawfully and in
good faith. There exists an implicit covenant of good faith binding judges. That has to
be the a priori position to hold otherwise would lead to the absurd position of the good
faith bases of judges” actions being debatable points and open to an intolerable deluge
of litigation, each unhappy litigant suing judges left right and centre as wounded pride
dictates. Citing Gikonyo J in the case of Moses Wamalwa Mukomari vs. John O. Makali
& 3 Others [2012]eKLR and Mativo J in the case of Maina Gitonga vs. Catherine Nyawira
Maina & Another [2015],
6. Even though judges are fallible human beings like everybody else, a mechanism does
exist in our laws for correcting whatever errors they may commit in the discharge of
their juridical functions. Aggrieved parties are at liberty to appeal as a matter of course
and that appellate system suffices to deal with ordinary errors of law and fact so that
in the end justice is served. I also harbour no doubts that where a judge’s conduct
consists in egregious illegalities, violation of the judicial oath or outright illegalities and
criminality, a mechanism for removal does exist and can be triggered in appropriate
cases. I am satisfied that those mechanisms suffice to guard the integrity of the
judicial process and to protect the rule of law and the rights of litigants. They ensure
that judicial immunity, which is laudable and necessary for the protection of judicial
independence does not morph into judicial impunity or some form of Frankenstenian
tyranny against the law and the people.
Per M’noti JA, in his concurring judgment:
1. The use of the phrases “action” and “suit” in Article 160(5) means that the provision
addresses itself to the civil liability of a judicial officer for good faith acts or omissions
in the lawful performance of his or her judicial functions.
2. Contrary to what the Appellant suggests, the purposes of the immunity provided by
that provision is not to visit upon the citizens of Kenya. In its true character, immunity
is never the father of impunity. The judicial immunity conferred by Article 160(5) is
an important pillar or prop of the independence of the judiciary, a core tenet of the
Constitution of Kenya. The immunity is not for the personal benefit of judges; like
the contempt power, it was never intended for the ego or personal interest of judges.
The true intention is protection of the administration of justice. Judicial immunity is
founded on public interest considerations that, while determining cases, judges should
be free from external pressures and in particular, the anxiety of having to personally
defend suits and actions at the instance of parties who believe that the outcome of
their cases should have been different from what the judge decreed.
3. For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of
justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free
to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to
himself. Liability to answer to everyone who might feel himself aggrieved by the action
of the judge, would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would
destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or
useful citing Bradley v. Fisher 80 U.S. (13 Wall), 335, 351 [1972],
4. Where a judge acts in bad faith or omits to act in good faith in the lawful performance
of his or her judicial function, that fundamentally raises questions of his or her
integrity and fidelity to the judicial oath of office, and in my view, the remedy under
the Constitution is not an action or suit against such judge, while allowing him or
her to continue wreaking havoc from the hallowed seat of justice. Such a judge is a
threat to the entire constitutional edifice and in particular it’s values, principles and
the judicial oath of office which demands of a judge discharge of the duties of the office
diligently, without, among others, favour, bias, affection, ill- will prejudice or undue
influence. In that eventuality therefore, the Constitution has provided, in Article 168,
a specific and elaborate procedure for dealing with that kind of judge.
5. I would accordingly read Article 160(5) to be saying that judicial immunity is not
available to a judge who acts in bad faith or omits to act in good faith in the lawful
performance of his or her judicial function when he is subjected to the appropriate
mechanism prescribed by the Constitution.
Appeal dismissed.
4.2.3 Article 45(3) of the Constitution on equality of spouses at the time of marriage, during
the marriage and at the dissolution of marriage does not translate to equal matrimonial
property entitlement.
PNN vs ZNN [2017] eKLR

Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2014
Brief of the case:
The Appellant (husband) and Respondent (wife) were married under the African Christian
Marriage and Divorce Act Cap 157 (Repealed) in 1961. At the time of their marriage, they
were both gainfully employed; P earning Ksh 350 per month and Z Ksh 270 respectively.
They respectively earned promotions and salary increments until their retirement in 1990
when they continued to earn pensions. The marriage enjoyed considerable bliss and they
had seven children whom they educated and brought up through adulthood. They made
sizable investments in real and movable property until 1987 when the marriage hit the rocks
and P (husband) left the matrimonial home for several years returning briefly in 1999 only
to leave again in 2001 to cohabit with another woman.
Z thereafter moved to court and sought a declaration that P held several movable property in
his name in trust and that the trust be terminated and the property be apportioned between
them as the Court deems fit and just. She contended that the property had been acquired
jointly during coverture and that she had contributed directly and indirectly towards its
acquisition and development.
P resisted the claims on the basis that he was the registered proprietor of the property,
which he solely acquired and developed. He denied voluntarily leaving the matrimonial
home instead blaming Z for harassment and cruelty towards him and his parents who later
died.
The trial judge evaluated the evidence on acquisition of each of the property, considered
and applied the Constitution 2010 and other relevant International Instruments ratified by
Kenya, made findings of fact and issued several final orders and specifically that some of the
identified property were matrimonial property to be shared equally by both parties.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, P filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal
challenging the trial judge’s finding that Z had made direct and indirect contribution
towards the acquisition of any of the property.
P contended that the trial judge had failed to follow or be guided by the Court of Appeal
decision in Echaria vs Echaria [2007] 2 EA 139 and holding that Z was entitled to 50 per
cent of the property registered in P`s name without firstly determining how much Z had
contributed towards the acquisition of the property, whether direct or indirect.
Held:
1. The Constitution ought to be given a broad and purposive interpretation that enhances
the protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
2. Z had more than a passing interest in the management and operations of the property
as the couple jointly held a bank account in which the proceeds from the commercial
activities of the farm were banked.
3. Z requested for leave from her job in order to manage the farm and P donated a power
of attorney to Z to enable her do anything and everything that he would do in his own
name as the proprietor of the farm.
4. The Constitution declares marriage as a partnership of equals and no spouse is superior
to the other. None should ride rough shod over the rights of the other.
5. Equality of parties does not translate to equal proprietary entitlement. Distribution of
matrimonial property must be preceded with on the basis of fairness and conscience
and must be decided after weighing the particular circumstances of each case.
Per Kiage JA.
6. A spouse may be so uncooperative, so wasteful, so distant, so all-over that he or she has

hardly provided the warmth of companionship on the basis of which it might be said
they made a non-monetary contribution to matrimonial property. In such instance it
may well be that the one spouse achieved all they did and acquired not because, but
rather in spite of their lazy, selfish, wasteful, wayward, drunken or draining mate.
In such circumstances, an assessment of the inauspicious party’s non-monetary
contribution may well turn out to be in the negative, the account in debit. No fifty-
fifty philosophy would grant such a party any right to property acquired without their
contribution and notwithstanding their negation or diminution of the efforts towards
its acquisition.
Appeal dismissed.
4.2.4 Can a resulting trust arise where property is transferred in circumstances in which the
transferor did not intend to transfer the beneficial interest to the transferee?
Juletabi African Adventure Limited & another vs Christopher Michael Lockley [2017] eKLR
Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2016
Court of Appeal at Mombasa
November 23, 2017.
Brief of the case:
The first Appellant was incorporated on June 28, 2006; The Respondent held 60per cent of
the shareholding while the second Appellant held 40 per cent. Both the second Appellant
and the Respondent agreed that the second Appellant would take charge of the business
operations as well as management of the first Appellant. It was further agreed that the
Respondent would provide the initial capital of running the company, which he did by
depositing the amount into the second Appellant’s wife, bank account.
In the year 2007, the second Appellant informed the Respondent that the first Appellant
was in need of a four wheel drive vehicle in order to conduct its business properly. The
Respondent credited 15,500 into the first Appellant’s account at Imperial Bank Limited for
the said purchase. The said sum was advanced to the first Appellant and it was agreed that
it would be offset by the first Appellant paying him 50per cent of its profits until the same
was paid in full. It was pursuant to the said advance that motor vehicle registration number
KAM 634J was purchased and registered in the first Appellant’s name. Nevertheless, no
payments were ever made to the second Respondent.
Still in 2007 the first Respondent requested the second Appellant to help him identify a
suitable parcel of land in Diani to purchase. The second Respondent made substantial deposits
into the first Appellant’s account for that purpose and requested the second Appellant to
undertake the transaction on his behalf. However, when the purchase was completed the
first Appellant registered the parcel in his favour second Respondent.
Thereafter, the Respondent learnt that the second Appellant and his wife had opened a
parallel competing company and that the vehicle, which had been purchased for the first
Appellant’s purposes, had been converted to the said competing business. The Respondent
requested the second Appellant to release the logbook of the vehicle and the title deed of
the parcel with a view of facilitating the transfer of the said properties to him. Despite the
second appellant agreeing to do so, he failed and refused to honour his word.
Perturbed by the second Appellant’s actions, the Respondent filed a suit in the High Court
claiming among others that the first Appellant was holding the properties in trust for him.
The Trial Court in a judgment dated August 21 2015, allowed the Respondent’s suit. Aggrieved
by the decision the Appellants filed the Appeal.
i. What were the circumstances where one could institute a derivative suit?
ii. What were the circumstances where a court could presume a constructive trust?
iii. Whether a resulting trust arose where property was transferred under circumstances
which suggested that the transferor did not intend to confer a beneficial interest upon
the transferee
iv. What was the distinction between a constructive trust and a resulting trust?
v. What was the effect of not listing particulars of a claim in a plaint?
Held:
1. Whether or not the Respondent had the requisite standing turned on the nature of
the claim before the Trial Court. By dint of the rule in Foss vs. Harbottle, there was
no argument that the proper plaintiff in any proceedings or action in respect of a
wrong done to a company was the company itself. That was based on the principle
that a company was a legal personality distinct from its directors and shareholders.
However, there were exceptions to the rule which allowed a person to sue on behalf of
the company.
2. A derivative suit was basically brought on behalf of a company for wrongs committed
against it or in other words for the benefit of the company. The nature of the suit
instituted by the Respondent was not a derivative suit.
3. The Respondent did not institute the suit on behalf or for the benefit of the first
Appellant for perceived wrong(s) against it. Rather, he filed the suit for his own
benefit for wrongs committed against him by the Appellants, to wit, breach of trust.
The Respondent did not require leave before instituting the suit.
4. What led the Defendants to submit that the Plaintiff’s claim did not have particulars
as required under order 2 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 was because the
Plaintiff did not draw out the Plaint as traditionally done by practitioners, where
certain paragraphs were clustered together under the heading ‘particulars’. That
practice had indeed become the norm form of usage but it did not mean that if one did
not draw his claim in that manner his claim failed.
5. The onus lay on a party relying on the existence of a trust to prove it through evidence.
The law never implies, the Court never presumes a trust, but in case of absolute
necessity. The Courts could not imply a trust save in order to give effect to the
intentions of the parties. The intention of the parties to create a trust had to be clearly
determined before a trust would be implied.
6. The first Appellant held the vehicle in trust for the Respondent. There was a detailed
account and paper trail of the funds the Respondent had transferred to the first
Appellant’s account in respect of the motor vehicle and parcel of land. It was clear that
the Respondent’s intention with respect to the funds transferred for the car was that
the same was to be paid back by the first Appellant. The Respondent had purchased
the parcel of land for his own benefit. The fact that it was later registered in favour of
the first Appellant didn’t divest him of his interest thereon.
7. In the absence of an express trust, there are trusts created by operation of the law.
They fell within two categories; constructive and resulting trusts. Given that the two
were closely interlinked, it was pertinent to look at each of them in relation to the
matter at hand.
8. A constructive trust was an equitable remedy imposed by the Court against one who
had acquired property by wrongdoing. It arose where the intention of the parties could
not be ascertained. If the circumstances of the case were such as would demand that
equity treats the legal owner as a trustee, the law would impose a trust. A constructive
trust would thus automatically arise where a person who was already a trustee took
advantage of his position for his own benefit.
9. Proof of parties’ intention was immaterial in constructive trusts, for the trust would
nonetheless be imposed by the law for the benefit of the settlor. Imposition of a
constructive trust was thus meant to guard against unjust enrichment.
10. A resulting trust was a remedy imposed by equity where property was transferred
under circumstances, which suggested that the transferor did not intend to confer
a beneficial interest upon the transferee. That trust could arise either upon the
unexpressed but presumed intention of the settlor or upon his informally expressed
intention.
11. Unlike constructive trusts where unknown intentions could be left unexplored,
with resulting trusts, courts would readily look at the circumstances of the case and
presume or infer the transferor’s intention. Most importantly, the general rule is that
a resulting trust will automatically arise in favour of the person who advanced the
purchase money. Whether or not the property was registered in his name or that of
another, was immaterial.
12. All indications were that a resulting trust arose as between the Respondent and the first
Appellant. A resulting trust automatically arose in favour of the person who advanced
the purchase money. Whether or not the property was registered in his name or that
of another, was immaterial. It was common ground that all the purchase money for
both the vehicle and the parcel was advanced by the Respondent. The parcel and
vehicle were therefore held in trust for the Respondent by the first Appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
4.3 JURISPRUDENCE EMANATING FROM THE HIGH COURT DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD
4.3.1 To what extent are consumers entitled to the Right to Nutritional Information and Storage
directions under Article 46 of the Constitution.
Mark Ndumia Ndung’u vs Nairobi Bottlers Ltd & Coca Cola Central, East & West Africa Ltd [2018]
eKLR
Petition 325 of 2015
High Court at Nairobi Constitutional and Human Rights Division
Brief of the case:

Nairobi Bottlers Limited and Coca Cola Central, East and West Africa Limited (the
Respondents) manufacture soft drinks under the brand names Coca Cola, Krest, Fanta,
Sprite and Stoney, and package them in glass bottles as well as plastic bottles. Mark Ndumia
Ndung’u (the Petitioner) preferred consuming Coca Cola found in glass bottles but he stopped
consuming the drink upon being diagnosed with ulcers by a doctor. The doctor advised him
to stop consuming products with acidic content. That advice sparked his curiosity relating
to the ingredients and nutritional value of foods and drinks, which he consumed.
The Petitioner later discovered that the Respondents’ soft drinks in plastic bottles, unlike
those in glass bottles, had the nutritional content listed as well as the Respondents’ contact
details for its customers and storage information.
He argued before the High Court that the omission of such information in the glass bottles
violated consumer rights as provided for in Article 46 of the Constitution. The Petitioner
argument was that the nutritional information would enable customers to know of the
benefits of consuming the drink and the contact details would help them give feedback
including complaints that would enable them to derive optimum benefit from the products.
He added that knowing information on storage would help the consumers retain the drink’s
freshness and other qualities. The Petitioner added that due to the price difference in the soft
drinks packaged in glass bottles as opposed to those packaged in plastic bottles, low-income
earners would opt for the glass bottles. In his view, the information gap would therefore be
discriminatory against the consumers of the glass bottle soft drink.
To buttress his argument on the critical importance of nutritional information on beverages,

the Petitioner highlighted the global commitment by the Coca Cola Company and its global
and regional partners in the sustainability plans to provide nutritional information on an
ongoing basis. He also noted that the Respondents have provided nutritional information on
the labels of the Dasani water processed and bottled by the Respondents.
The Petitioner sought among others a mandatory order compelling the Respondents to
display the nutritional value, storage directions, customer care email address and phone
number on the Coca Cola, Fanta, Krest, Stoney and Sprite glass bottles.
In response, the first Respondent explained that the Coca Cola crown glass bottle caps bore
the physical and postal address of the manufacturer, brand of trade name, as well as optional
ingredients such as carbonated water, sugar, colour, caramel, acidulant, phosphoric acid,
flavoring and caffeine. It further explained that the price difference in the soft drinks
packaged in glass bottles as compared to those in plastic bottles was based on the fact that
glass bottles were re-usable.
The second Respondent on its part asserted that it had complied with the food labelling and
specification requirements under the Food, Drugs and Chemical Substances Act and the
Standards Act. Further, it stated that the Petitioner wrongly assumed that there was a legal
obligation on a manufacturer, packer or distributor of soft drinks to display the nutritional
information, email address and storage directions on the food label.

i. Whether a person who was unable to consume a soft drink for medical reasons had
the locus standi to institute a suit to enforce an alleged breach of consumer rights in
relation to the soft drink.
ii. Whether consumers of soft drinks had a right to nutritional information, storage
directions and customer service mobile number and email address.
iii. Whether provision of beneficial information only to a certain portion of consumers of

a given product was a form of discrimination.
Held:
1. The Petitioner did not have to show that he was affected by the alleged violation in
order to have standing to sue under Article 22 of the Constitution. Nothing prevented
a non-consumer of a product with a well-established right to sue under Article 22 of
the Constitution, from alleging that any consumer right or fundamental freedom in
Article 46 of the Constitution had been denied, violated or infringed or threatened.
2. Nutritional information contained in food labels, guaranteed consumer rights provided

for in Article 46 of the Constitution, in three ways: It assured them of products of
reasonable quality, it provided information necessary for them to gain full benefit
from goods and services and finally, it ensured the protection of consumers’ health,
safety, and economic interests.
3. Providing information to consumers, on ingredients, nutrition claims and declaration

of potential allergens as well as nutrition or health claims, food warnings and labels
inform consumption by enabling consumers to make informed decisions. Under Article
46 of the Constitution, nutritional information provided on labels ought to be truthful
and not misleading to consumers. Food ought not to be described or presented in a
manner that was false, misleading or deceptive. Therefore, the Respondents had an
obligation to provide nutritional information on their beverages to enable consumers
to gain full benefit from the beverages.
4. Information on safe storage, preparation and handling of food products was of critical
importance to consumers and had to be provided by the suppliers on the food label. It
would assure consumers of food products of reasonable quality, protect their health
and safety, and safeguard their economic interests. The Respondents had an obligation
to supply consumers with the storage directions.
5. There would be no specific legal obligation to provide an email or phone address to
consumers. The Food, Drugs and Chemical Substances Act, as well as the Standards
Act, merely required the name and address of the manufacturer of beverages. The
Respondents’ glass bottles and crown bottle caps were in compliance as they contained
the Respondents’ address.
6. The Respondents supplied their mobile phone number on their beverage’s plastic
bottles and omitted it from the glass bottles. It would be discriminatory to supply
customer service mobile numbers and email addresses to a class of consumers while
denying the same to a different class of consumers of the same product. Where a
supplier opted to avail its customer service mobile number and email address to
consumers of a product, it had to do so uniformly to all consumers of that product
without distinction.
Petition partly allowed.
4.3.2 Whether a Kenyan by birth can lose his/her citizenship by acquisition of another
country’s citizenship
E W A & 2 others vs Director of Immigration and Registration of Persons & another
Petition No 352 of 2016
High Court at Nairobi
Constitutional and Human Rights Division
February 22, 2018
Brief of the case

The Petitioners were born as Kenyan citizens at hospitals in Nairobi, Kenya. They were adopted
by two British citizens. Their adoption orders did not state that they would be presumed to
be Kenyan citizens and pursuant to the adoption, they acquired British citizenship.
The Petitioners sought to regain Kenyan citizenship and applied for Kenyan passports but
the first Respondent declined to issue the passports. The Petitioners said that the denial
of the passports was a violation of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution under
Article 14 and 27 and they wanted the Court to declare that they were Kenyan Citizens.
The Respondents stated that the petition was premature and that the Petitioners needed to
follow the procedure provided for in Section 10 of the Kenya Citizen and Immigration Act in
order to regain citizenship.

i. What legal procedure was applicable to a person who was a Kenyan citizen by birth
and was seeking to regain Kenyan citizenship after having lost it by acquiring foreign
citizenship?
ii. Under what circumstances was a person entitled to a Kenyan passport?
Held:
1. Any existing law which was inconsistent with the Constitution would be invalid to
the extent of the inconsistency. Any provisions of the Immigration Act (repealed)
that were inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 would be
invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
2. Given that the Petitioners were Kenya citizens by birth, their citizenship could not
be revoked or lost merely because they acquired citizenship of another country.
Under Article 14(5) of the Constitution, a person who was a Kenyan by birth, on the
effective date, but ceased to be a Kenyan by acquiring foreign citizenship, was entitled
upon application to regain Kenyan citizenship. The Petitioners fell within the terms
of Article 14(5) of the Constitution and they were entitled to regain citizenship after
making an application.
3. The Petitioners were only required to do was to apply to regain their citizenship. The
provisions of Article 14(4) of the Constitution and Section 9 of the Kenya Citizenship
and Immigration Act would not apply to the Applicants because those provisions
applied to children who were apparently under the age of 5 years with unknown
parents.
4. A person born in Kenya with at least one Kenyan parent would enjoy Kenyan citizenship
by birth under the terms of Article 14(1) of the Constitution. That citizenship could not
be lost or revoked under any circumstances. The rights and privileges of citizenship
under Article 12(1) of the Constitution, included the issuance of passports, documents
of registration or identification issued by the State to its citizens. Such documents could
only be denied, suspended or confiscated in accordance with an Act of Parliament
which satisfied the criteria set out in Article 24 of the Constitution.
5. Nationality or citizenship by birth meant nationality that an individual was

automatically attributed by law from the moment of birth rather than citizenship
acquired as an adult or following any administrative process. The determination of
citizenship would be a basic element in obliging the state to protect its citizens and
to let them enjoy certain constitutional rights which were related to citizenship, for
example, the right to vote.
6. Section 10 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act provided that a person who
had been a Kenyan citizen by birth but lost Kenyan citizenship after acquiring foreign
citizenship could apply in the prescribed manner to the Cabinet Secretary to regain
citizenship. The requirement was that such an application would be accompanied
by proof of the Applicant’s Kenyan citizenship. The application would have to be
accompanied by proof of Applicant’s previous Kenyan citizenship and proof of
citizenship of the foreign country.
7. There was no basis for the first Respondent to refuse to grant the Petitioners Kenyan
passports. Under Article 14(5) of the Constitution, the Petitioners were entitled to
regain citizenship upon making an application and under Section 10 of the Kenya
Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Cabinet Secretary was enjoined to issue the
requisite certificate in the prescribed form.
8. The High Court was empowered to fashion appropriate reliefs for purposes of the
enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to Article 23(3) of the
Constitution. Such relief would take various forms and it could include fashioning
new reliefs that the circumstances of the case required.
Petition allowed.
4.3.3 The Right of an Adopted Child to know the Identity of his/her Biological Parents
D W T vs B N T & 3 others [2018] eKLR

April 18, 2018
Brief of the case:

The Petitioner, a male adult, was an adopted son of the first and second Respondents. He sought
to know his biological parents and circumstances of his adoption from the 3rd Respondent.
The Petitioner claimed that his rights under Articles 27, 28 and 35 of the Constitution had
been violated in that the adopting parents adopted him under circumstances unknown to
him, yet they had denied him parental compassion, love, care and support.
The Petitioner claimed that he lived with the first and second Respondents until he was
17 years when he was compelled by adverse treatment to leave their home. He stated that
sometimes in 2011, he was charged, tried and convicted of the offence of violently robbing
the second Respondent. His appeal against the said conviction was pending in the Court of
Appeal.
The Petitioner sought a declaration that despite not being their biological son and regardless
of criminal proceedings against him, he was part of the first and second Respondents’
family, and was consequently eligible to parental care, love and support and was entitled
to enjoy the right to dignity, security of person, family and equality like other members
of the family to the greatest extent possible. The Petitioner had also enjoined the fourth
Respondent, the British High Commission in the instant Petition.

i. Whether an adopted child had a right to know his or her biological parents
ii. Whether a right to the information of the child’s background and the identifying
information about his/her biological parents could be articulated as a fundamental
‘right’ guaranteed in the Bill of Rights
iii. Whether the Petition was bad for misjoinder of parties and for raising several causes
of action
Held:
1. Whereas the law in Kenya merely provided for adoption, it did not address any concerns
or the rights of adopted children to know the identity of their biological parents, the
circumstances that led to their adoption, and the suitability of the adopting parents.
2. Whereas pertinent questions were determined by the court handling the adoption,
there was no provision stating that such information was to be provided to the child
either during minority or upon attaining the age of majority. Part X11of the Children’s
Act lay down parameters as to who could adopt and under what conditions, but other
than parental rights, it did not address pertinent rights of the adopted child such as:
the right to identity, the right to be informed about his or her biological parents, the
right to be informed of the circumstances leading to his adoption, and the right to
know the whereabouts of her/his biological parents or the suitability of the adopting
parents.
3. Every person had the right to know where they came from and their family lineage.
A big dilemma however arose in adoption cases. Adoption processes throughout the
world were shrouded in secrecy, perhaps due to the sensitive nature of the relationship
that was being severed or created out of the adoption exercise. The Children’s Act
was silent on the question of whether or not adopted children had a right to know
their origin. Further, the Act was also silent on what information the children could
or could not access and at what age. The information on the origin of the child was
in the custody of the government and adoption agencies and the court handling the
adoption. That lacuna in Kenya’s law led the Court to resort to international law as a
source of law in Kenya.
4. Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provided that states parties were
to undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including
nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful
interference. It further provided that where the child was illegally deprived of some
or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties had to provide appropriate
assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing the child’s identity. Article
30 of the same convention provided that the competent authorities of a contracting
state were to ensure that information held by them concerning the child’s origin, in
particular information concerning the identity of the child’s parents, as well as the
medical history, was preserved. It required state parties to ensure that the child or his
or her representative had access to such information, under appropriate guidance, in
so far as was permitted by the law of that state.
5. The law in the United Kingdom provided that children could apply for a copy of their
original birth certificate and for information about their birth family from the adoption
agency, which arranged the adoption. Adult adoptees and birth family members could
also apply to the Registrar General for entry of their names on the Adoption Contact
Register which included the names of adopted persons and the relatives of adopted
persons. In other Jurisdictions, the right was guaranteed once one reached the age of
majority.
6. From the child study report, one would be able to gather information as to who were
the biological parents of the child, if the biological parents were known. There could
be no objection in furnishing to the adoptive parents particulars in regard to the
biological parents of the child taken in adoption, but it was to be made clear that it
was to be entirely at the discretion of the adoptive parents whether and if so when , to
inform the child about its biological parents. But if after attaining the age of maturity,
the child wanted to know about its biological parents, there could not be any serious
objection to the giving of such information to the child because after the child had
attained maturity, it was not likely to be easily affected by such information and in
such a case, the adoptive parents could, in exercise of their discretion, furnish such
information to the child if they thought fit.
7. In Kenya, when issues of the need for the child to know the biological parents arise,
the court could refer to the Constitution for reference and guidance. Article 35 of the
Constitution provides that every citizen had the right of access to information held
by the state, information held by another person and required for the exercise or
protection of any right or fundamental freedom. Information regarding adoption of
children in Kenya is held by the State and adoption agencies. Article 35 enabled the
child either during the age of minority through her legal guardian or after attaining
the age of majority to apply to be furnished with information about their biological
parents.
8. Article 31 of the Constitution provides that every person had the right to privacy, which
includes the right not to have information relating to their family or private affairs
unnecessarily required or revealed. This provision brings about a competition of rights
and interests. The biological parents of the child have the right to have their matters
kept in secrecy but the child on the other hand had the right to the information and to
know their true identities. Article 53 of the Constitution provides that the best interest
of the child is of paramount importance in all matters affecting the child. Children
adoptees have a right to know the identity of their parents, the parent’s origin and
the existence if any of their siblings. In pursuing the right to know one’s origins as a
fundamental right, the three interests that emerge are - medical, legal and genetic.
Furthermore, when enjoying the right, one had to strike a balance between the need
for one to know the biological parents, and protection of confidentiality/privacy of
the biological and adopting parents.
9. The need to know one’s parentage and background is crucial to children and adults
who did not have that information. That right to know one’s origins means having the
information and identity of one’s biological parents and conditions of birth. The right
to know stemmed from the desire to know the identity of self. Social scientists had
considered the meaning of identity to be determined by three main aspects: - self-
definition, coherence of personality and a sense of continuity over time.
10. Identity is thus, seen as essentially ‘self-in-context.’ This means that identity is
often determined by social changes and one’s definition of self was affected by how
a relationship was seen in the social context. Adoption transgresses the notions of
identity and the journey of identity development in Kenya is complex and problematic
for adopted persons. Adoption was governed by different kinds of social arrangements;
those arrangements had implications on the development of the identity of the child.
11. Many adopted persons feel the need to know information about their birth parents.
That need translates to an assertion of the right to know one’s origins. There are three
main needs to have that information –
a. There is often the desire to know one’s medical and health history and for that
purpose, knowing the medical history of one’s parents and ancestors became
important.
b. One’s legal interest in property, which blood relationship could confer on

children. These two interests are subsidiary interests.
c. The primary interest is a psychological need for identity. The psychological need
to know one’s roots or identity was found to be the most important reason as to
why adoptees want to know about their biological parents since it underlay the
need to know and could shape the identity of an adopted person.
12. Adopted persons who do not have information about their roots often had difficulty
establishing a personal identity. Problems with identity formation are particularly
acute during adolescence and at crisis points in adulthood. A diminished sense of
self was also related to genealogical bewilderment. Genealogical bewilderment could
occur when children either did not have any knowledge of their biological parents
or possessed only uncertain knowledge and the resulting state of confusion and
uncertainty fundamentally undermined children’s sense of security, thus affecting
their mental health. In addition to the psychological need, medical crises also often
precipitated the need for information about biological relatives. Ranging from allergies
to searches for transplant donors, medical needs could have left adoptees without
sufficient information to get proper treatment. Short of a crisis, impending marriage
and childbearing leads to concerns about genetic disease and hereditary traits. Other
reasons for open records advanced by adoptees included inheritance rights, religion,
and simply a longing to meet their birth parents.
13. It is beyond doubt that there is an international recognition of the child’s Right to
identity as a fundamental right. That psychological need to know one’s identity has
been articulated as a right in the Convention for the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC) in
Articles 7 and 8. The CRC had gone on to protect several rights of the child, such as
the right to identity that were not recognized as fundamental human rights before, a
recognition that it was a right worthy of international recognition. “Identity” was not
defined under the CRC and only instances of identity such as nationality, name and
family relations are listed.
14. Article 8 was particularly meant to address unusual conditions such as natural parents
versus adoptive parents and other such conditions. Article 8, therefore imposed an
obligation on the State to not only preserve the identity of a child i.e. to preserve all
the information relating to the biological parents of the adopted child, but also not to
deprive the child of such information and to assist the child in getting such information.
15. The CRC, thus, affirmed that an adoptee could seek a right against the State or
any person for providing him/her information about her identity and about her
biological parents. In addition to the CRC, the child’s right to know her identity was
also protected in the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation
in Respect of Inter- Country Adoption. In Article 30, it required State authorities to
ensure that information held by them concerning the child’s origin, in particular
information concerning the identity of his or her parents, as well as the medical
history, was preserved and that the child or his or her representative had access to
such information, under appropriate guidance, in so far as it was permitted by law in
that State.
16. The child’s right to know his or her origin is derived from the general right to privacy
guaranteed under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1966. The right to privacy would include the right to know and receive information
of one’s family and private life and guaranteed against arbitrary interference with the
same. The right to privacy and family life was also guaranteed under Article 8 of the
European Convention of Human Rights.
17. That need of the child to know about her background was also recognized in the
Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of
Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and
Internationally in Article 9 which states that the need of a foster or an adopted child
to know about his or her background was to be recognized by persons responsible for
the child’s care, unless that was contrary to the child’s best interests.
18. The competing rights such as the right to privacy for the biological parents and the
adopting parents all had to be balanced. With those competing interests, courts were
obligated to ensure that the best interests of the child where the child was still a minor,
had to prevail over all interests of all other parties. On the other hand, where the child
has attained the age of majority as in the instant case, the reasons for refusal to supply
the information had to satisfy the limitations test under Article 24of the Constitution.
19. The law in Kenya is in favour of the disclosure. First, the adopted person had a
constitutional right to dignity and privacy, which included right to know their
biological parents. By insisting on the information, the person is seeking to exercise a
fundamental right recognized in Kenya’s Constitution and international Instruments
discussed above. Article 35 of the constitution provided that every citizen has the
right of access to information held by the state, information held by another person
and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom.
20. Information regarding adoption of children in Kenya is held by the State and adoption
agencies. The only limitation in the case of a minor would be the best interests of the
child contemplated under Article 53 (2) of the Constitution. For an adult, as is the
case here, the reasons for refusal could only pass constitutional muster if they satisfy
limitation of rights under Article 24. For example, the need to ensure that the disclosure
did not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others. Examples here
would include: the right to privacy of the biological parents and the adoptive parents,
but even then, the burden lay on the person who sought to justify the limitation to
demonstrate to the court that the requirements of Article 24 of the Constitution had
been satisfied.
21. There is no material before the court to demonstrate that the 3rd Respondent handled the
adoption in question or had in its custody, care or control the information sought. The
adoption is done in court. The Petitioner did not avail the court proceedings, judgment
and documents produced in court in the adoption proceedings to demonstrate that
indeed the 3rd Respondent was involved in the adoption.
22. All cases are decided on the legal burden of proof being discharged (or not). No Judge
likes to decide cases on the burden of proof if he could legitimately avoid having to do
so. There are cases, however, in which, owing to the unsatisfactory state of the evidence
or otherwise, deciding on the burden of proof was the only just course to take. Whether
one liked it or not, the legal burden of proof was consciously or unconsciously the acid
test applied when coming to a decision in any particular case. The court’s decision
in every case depends on whether the party concerned has satisfied the particular
burden and standard of proof imposed on him.
23. It is a fundamental principle of law that a litigant bears the burden of proof in
respect of the propositions he asserts to prove his claim. Decisions on violation of
constitutional rights were not to be made in a factual vacuum. To attempt to do so
had the impact of trivializing the Constitution and inevitably result in ill-considered
opinions. Decisions on violation of constitutional rights could not be based upon the
unsupported hypotheses.
24. There is also no evidence that the Petitioner ever requested the information in question
from the 3rd Respondent or any of the Respondents and was denied. There had to be
a request for information before a party entitled to that information could allege a
violation. Even where a citizen is entitled to seek information under Article 35(1), he
or she was under an obligation to request for it. It is onlyif it it is denied that a party
approach the court for relief.
25. Failure by the Petitioner to adduce evidence to link the 3rd Respondent with the
adoption led the court to the irresistible conclusion that there was no material for the
court to conclude that the 3rd Respondent handled the adoption in question or had in
their custody, control or power the information sought. Consequently, the answer to
the issue under consideration is in the negative.
26. The first and second Respondents cited provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and
heavily relied on decisions rendered in civil cases. They over looked the fact that the
case was a constitutional Petition seeking to enforce fundamental rights and that
the same was expressed under the provisions of the Constitution. The proceedings
are governed by the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013.
27. It was evident both from the Constitution and the rules which required that substantive
justice be done that the joinder, misjoinder or non-joinder of a party was not sufficient
to defeat a constitutional Petition. Those rules were in accord with the requirements of
the Constitution that in exercising judicial authority, the court seeks to do substantive
justice, hence the provisions of Article 159 (2)(d) of the Constitution which provide
that justice is to be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. In
the circumstances, the objection which premised on the alleged misjoinder of parties
failed.
28. While elegance in a pleading was not a precondition to its legitimacy, it is an

aspiration which, if achieved, could only but advance the interests of justice. A poorly
drawn pleading, on the other hand, which does not tell a coherent story in a well
ordered structure, would fail to achieve the central purpose of the exercise, namely
communication of the essence of case which was sought to be advanced.
29. Pleadings are not to be dismissed as a lost art. It had an important part to play in civil
litigation conducted within the adversarial system. Crafting a good pleading calls for
precision in drafting, diligence in the identification of the material facts marshalled
in support of each allegation, an understanding of the legal principles which were
necessary to formulate complete causes of action and the judgment and courage to
shed what was unnecessary.
30. Although a primary function of a pleading is to tell the defending party what claim
it has to meet, an equally important function is to inform the court or tribunal of fact
precisely what issues are before it for determination.
31. The function of a pleading in civil proceedings is to alert the other party to the case they
need to meet and hence satisfy basic requirements of procedural fairness and further,
to define the precise issues for determination so that the court can conduct a fair trial.
The cardinal rule is that a pleading has to state all material facts to establish a reasonable
cause of action (or defence). The expression “material fact” is not synonymous with
providing all the circumstances. Material facts were only those relied on to establish
the essential elements of the cause of action. The instant pleading is not so prolix that
the opposite party is unable to ascertain with precision the causes of action and the
material facts that were alleged against them. The issues raised in the Petition were not
confusing. The objection based on the said ground thus failed.
32. The Petitioner is an adult in his late thirties or thereabout. He should not be heard to
say he has a fundamental right to receive financial support from his parents or even
to be facilitated to travel abroad as of right as he alleged. Failure to visit him in prison
could have been distressing but the victims of the crime are his parents. They could
have been distressed too.
33. The apprehension that the adoptee could have been disinherited are a mere
apprehension. Courts do not deal with hypothetical situations. Put differently, whether
or not the Petitioner’s fear of his right to inherit his parents could be canvassed in the
instant petition raises common law principles in relation to what were called abstract,
academic or hypothetical questions. The principle is called ripeness; it prevents a
party from approaching a court prematurely at a time when he/she has not yet been
subjected to prejudice, or the real threat of prejudice, as a result of the conduct alleged
to be unconstitutional.
34. The essential flaw in the applicants’ case is one of timing referred to as ‘ripeness’. The
doctrine of ripeness serves the useful purpose of highlighting that the business of a
court is generally retrospective; it deals with situations or problems that have already
ripened or crystallised, and not with prospective or hypothetical ones.
35. It has always been a fundamental feature of Kenya’s judicial system that the courts
decided disputes between the parties before them; they did not pronounce on abstract
questions of law when there was no dispute to be resolved. It is true that usually the
court did not solve hypothetical problems and abstract questions and declaratory
actions could not be brought unless the rights in question in such action had actually
been infringed. The requirement of a dispute between the parties is a general limitation
to the jurisdiction of the court. The existence of a dispute is the primary condition for
the court to exercise its judicial function. Ripeness asked whether a dispute existed,
that was, whether the dispute had come into being.
36. In the instant case, a dispute on the alleged inheritance rights does not exist. Before
the Court was a constitutional Petition seeking declarations premised on alleged
violation of constitutional rights but not a succession dispute. A dispute premised
on alleged inheritance right is a matter primarily to be determined in succession
proceedings where beneficiaries are identified and their rights over the property, if
any, determined.
37. On the question of ripeness, the court is being asked to make a declaration on an issue
whether the petitioner was part of the first and second Respondents family, despite
not being their biological son and regardless of criminal proceedings against him. The
Petitioner had however not demonstrated that a dispute existed. There was nothing
on record to show that the parents had denied, disowned the Petitioner as their son.
38. Courts decide disputes between the parties before them; they do not pronounce on
abstract questions of law when there is no dispute to be resolved. The court does not
solve hypothetical problems and abstract questions and declaratory actions could not
be brought unless the rights in question in such action had actually been infringed.
The declaration sought if granted in the instant Petition, owing to the peculiar
circumstances of the case, would have been tantamount to determining succession
rights or property rights or declaring the Petitioner a beneficiary which would have
had far reaching consequences because it would have amounted to encroaching in to
the mandate of the succession court in the event of a succession dispute.
Petition dismissed with no orders as to costs.
4.3.4 Whether or not the decision of the Government of the Republic of Kenya to disband the
Department of Refugees Affairs and appoint a Task Force to implement the closing of
the Dadaab Refugee Camp Complex and repatriation of the refugees of Somali origin to
Somali violates the constitutional right of the refugees.
Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and Another vs Attorney General and 3 others
[2017] eKLR
Facts:
The petition brought into sharp focus Kenya`s obligation under International Law and
Regional Conventions, the Refugee Act and the application of the Bill of Right to persons
enjoying refugee status within the Republic of Kenya and circumstances under which
refugee status can legally cease to exist.
On 6th May 2016, Dr. Karanja Kibicho issued a directive through a press release stating that
the government had disbanded the Department of Refugee Affairs (DRA) and was working
on mechanism on the closure of Kakuma and Dadaab refugee camps within the shortest
possible time due to what he described as national security.
On 10th May 2016, he issued another press statement confirming the disbandment of the
department of refugee affairs and gazettement of taskforce to implement repatriation of
refugees to Somalia.
He also confirmed that the Dadaab Refugee complex would be closed by November 2016 and
that the Task Force had until May 2016 to furnish him with a plan of action.
On 29th April 2016, Dr. Kibicho (third Respondent) revoked the prima facie status of refugees
of Somali origin vide Gazette Notice No.46.
The Petitioners filed the petition challenging Dr. Kibicho`s action stating that it violated the
provisions of Article 47 of the Constitution as he failed to take into consideration the country
of origin information and denied the refugees reasonable and fair administrative action.
The petitioners averred that the threatened closure of the camps, and the repatriation of the
refugees, offended various International legal Instruments protecting refugees as well as
those prohibiting torture, cruelty, and degrading and inhuman treatment.
The Petitioners contended that blanket condemnation and labelling refugees of Somali
origin as terrorists is discriminatory and violates the principle of “individual criminality”
The Petitioners further argued that the decision to disband the Department of Refugees
Affairs, did not take into account the fact that Kenya hosts refugees from other countries,
that asylum seekers will have no access to asylum procedures in contravention of Kenya`s
obligation under the 1951 Convention, that the refugees whose identification documents have
expired will have nowhere to renew their documents, that the decision would undermine
protection of refugees and that the acts violate Articles 10(2) (1) , 94(5) , 129(1) and 73 of the
Constitution.
The petitioner contended that Article 259 of the Constitution must be interpreted in the
manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles and advances the rule of law,
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights and permits the development
of the law and contributes to good governance.
The Respondent opposed the Petition and stated that the scope of governments past and
present affairs are guided by the Constitution, the law, and the country`s international
obligations, that the government was a signatory to a number of international and regional
obligations on refugee affairs and that Kenya has hosted refugees from Uganda, Somali,
South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo as a result
of political instability in those countries.
The Respondents averred that the decision complained of was informed by the cessation
of the circumstances giving rise to the refugees in Somalia and the justifiable emergent
challenges that render Kenya incapable of continued hosting of refugees, and that conditions
stated in Section 3 of the Refugee Act (namely persecution for reasons of race, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, external aggression, occupation,
foreign domination or events disturbing public order) are no longer in existence in Somali
and that the situation in Somali, Uganda, Congo, and Burundi has normalized.
The respondents cited justification under Article 24 of the Constitution, overcrowding in
the camps, terrorist attacks, huge economic costs, human trafficking, and proliferation of
arms, strained government resources and insecurity.
The Respondents cited the Tripartite Agreement on repatriation of Somali refugees signed in
November 2013 with UNHCR and Federal Republic of Somalia, which had to be implemented
in three years terminating on 13 November 2016 under which a commission was formed
with the membership drawn from the three actors. The Commission, according to the
respondent, was mandated to develop and oversee implementation of a comprehensive
repatriation plan to guide the process and that as a result more than 14,000 refugees had
since been repatriated to Somalia.
The Respondent contended that due to dishonesty on the part of the international community,
the government had been forced to reconsider the implementation mechanisms of the
repatriation hence the decision to appoint a task force to come up with modalities, timelines
and costs of the repatriation while ensuring safety and human dignity.
The petitioner countered the Respondent’s contentions and stated that the government was
employing draconian and oppressive measures, which will expose the lives of innocent,
helpless refugees to the danger of trauma, torture, harm and the possibility of loss of life.
The petitioner stated that Somalia was still volatile as evidenced by a report prepared by the
Amnesty International which highlighted blatant violation of International law and high
level of insecurity in many parts of Somalia and that it was the government`s duty to provide
security to its citizens and non- citizens and that the responsibility cannot be reverted to
refugees and asylum seekers who are seeking protection.
The Petitioner further averred that it was the government`s duty to screen all persons
entering the country and that the insinuation that refugee camps had become breeding
grounds for terrorists and smugglers, is an admission of failure by the government to fulfil
its function under the Refugee Act (2006) and other laws and that there was no evidence
linking any particular refugee or asylum seeker to particular criminal activity.
The Petitioner averred that the restriction of refugees ought to be ration and justifiable and
proportionate and that the principle behind the Tripartite Agreement was that the refugees
would return voluntarily and without undue influence or pressure.
Issues for Determination

1. Whether a state officer has powers to disband a body created by statute.
2. Whether the decision by the Government of Kenya to repatriate Somali refugees
against their will to their country of origin violated Article 47 of the Constitution and
Fair Administrative Act.
3. Whether the action by the Kenyan Government violated the principle of non-
refoulement.
Held
The Court held:-
a. The fourth Respondent did not have any powers to disband a body created by an Act of
Parliament and therefore acted outside his powers (ultra vires).
b. To comply with international law and practice, it must be shown that a durable solution
to the circumstances that led to the refugee status is in place.
c. The decision complained of violated the provisions of the Article 47 of the Constitution
and Fair Administrative Act.
d. The Government’s decision complained of violates the principle of non- refoulement and
is therefore in breach of International Law, Conventions and the country`s obligations
under various conventions under which it is a signatory.
e. Refugees can exceptionally be returned on grounds of being a threat to national security
of the host country or their proven criminal nature and record which constitute a
danger to the community.
The petition was allowed.
4.3.5 Requests for extradition and legal assistance by the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Should be In conformity with the laws of Kenya
Republic of Kenya (through the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National
Government) vs Paul Gicheru & Another
Misc. Criminal Application No. 193 of 2015
November 16, 2017
Brief of the case:

The facts of this case are that on April 1, 2015, the Applicant received a joint request from
the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the arrest and surrender of the Respondents. The
Respondents had been indicted by ICC for offences against the administration of justice
and warrants of arrest issued against them. In furtherance of the request by the ICC, the
Applicant applied for the Court to; issue a warrant of arrest against the Respondents and
thereafter determine the eligibility of the Respondents to be surrendered to the ICC to face
the charges for offences against the administration of justice; to issue an order for the seizure
of any relevant evidence from the Respondents; to grant permission to the investigators from
the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC to be present during the execution of such searches
and seizures; and to direct that such evidence that shall be seized be transmitted to the
ICC. The Applicant contended that he was satisfied that the request was valid and should be
presented to the Court for appropriate consideration.
On May 28, 2015, the court, issued some orders, including orders of arrest, search and
seizure. On July 30, 2015, the court inter alia directed that the warrant of arrest issued be
stayed pending the hearing and determination of the application.
The Respondents objected to the application on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, that
the Applicant had no jurisdiction to apply to the court for the surrender of the Respondents
without first satisfying the conditions precedent stipulated in Articles 10, 24, 27, 28, 29, 47
and 50 of the Constitution and Sections 18, 29, 172 and 173 of the International Crimes Act
(ICA) , that their rights to fair trial and due process as protected by the Constitution had
first to be adhered to before the Applicant could purport to present an application for their
surrender to the ICC. Further, the first Respondent filed an application seeking for orders,
inter alia, quashing of the warrant of arrest issued against him, staying of the request by
the ICC for his arrest and surrender unless and until the Applicant made the necessary
regulations.
Issues for determination

In this case, the Court was faced with the following issues for determination, that is:-
i. Whether the request for assistance by the International Criminal Court (ICC) was in
conformity with the Kenyan laws.
ii. Whether the ICC satisfied the preconditions on the admissibility of a case before the
ICC (prove that the state itself is not investigating or prosecuting, or has prosecuted,
but also where the state decided not to proceed with a prosecution, unless the decision
was due to the inability or unwillingness of the state) set out in Article 17 of the Rome
Statute in seeking the arrest and surrender of the Respondents.
iii. Whether absence of regulations which, were to be made by the Applicant pursuant to
Sections 172 & 173 of the ICA prescribing procedures for dealing with requests by ICC,
invalidated the proceedings by the Applicant.
iv. Whether the Respondents were eligible for arrest, surrender and eventual trial before
the ICC.
v. Whether the court had jurisdiction to try offences against the administration of justice
that the ICC had indicted the Respondents.
vi. Whether the court had jurisdiction to inquire into the validity or otherwise of the
order issued by the Pre-trial Chamber of the ICC.
vii. Whether the court had jurisdiction to quash the warrant of arrest, issued by a court of
equal jurisdiction.
Held
1. Kenya is a signatory to the Rome Statute of the ICC. The preamble and Article 1 of
the Rome Statute of the ICC provides that the ICC as established and in exercise of its
jurisdiction would be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. Article 17 of
the Rome Statute set out the circumstance under which the ICC could admit a case in
its jurisdiction.
2. The ICC, in seeking the surrender of the Respondents, was exercising a complementary
jurisdiction to that of the court as provided in the preamble and Article 1 of the Rome
Statute, and this was in respect of an alleged offence against the administration
of justice. Before the ICC exercises that jurisdiction, it has to satisfy itself of the
precondition set out in Article 17 of the Rome Statute particularly Article 17(2).
3. The Pre-trial Chamber of the ICC is aware of complementary jurisdiction when it

considered the application made by the Prosecutor of the ICC seeking the issuance
of the warrant of arrest of the Respondents. However, the Pre – trial Chamber held
that based on the information availed before the Chamber, an effective national
prosecution was unlikely to take place in the particular circumstances of the case. That
the size and extent of organization of the alleged criminal effort to corruptly influence
witnesses of the Court, as well as the related concerns for witness protection, were
reasons overwhelmingly militated in favour of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the
court. The Chamber did not consider that there was a need to consult with any State
Party that may have jurisdiction over the offences allegedly committed.
4. The Pre-trial Chamber of the ICC assumed jurisdiction in the case involving the
Respondents after it had been moved in an application filed by the Prosecutor of the
ICC. The application was made ex-parte without reference to any other concerned
party, including Kenya which was a State Party, and which it was expected it would
comply with the request for assistance to secure the surrender of the Respondents.
5. The Pre-trial Chamber was aware under the paragraph 10 of the preamble, Articles
1, 17, 70 of the Rome Statute of the ICC and rule 162 of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence of the ICC, the court with the primary jurisdiction to hear and determine
any charges relating to offences against the administration of justice is a national court
of a State Party, hence the requirement for the ICC to consult with the State Party that
may have jurisdiction over the offence.
6. For the Pre-trial Chamber to base its decision on available information before the
Chamber that an effective national prosecution was unlikely to take place in the
particular circumstance of the case without first consulting Kenya as a State Party on
whether it was willing to prosecute the Respondents on the basis of the evidence that
the Prosecutor of the ICC had, was contrary to Article 17 of the Rome Statute of the ICC
where the court was required to defer to a State Party unless the state was unwilling or
unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.
7. In making the decision, the Pre – Trial Chamber denied Kenya, a State Party, the
primary opportunity to investigate and prosecute the Respondents as provided under
Section 18 of the ICA. The Court shuddered to imagine that the Pre – Trial Chamber
chose not to consult Kenya because it had determined, without input from Kenya, that
the state felt in the category of states defined in Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute, that
is that Kenya’s criminal justice system suffered from total or substantial collapse or
unavailability of its national judicial system.
8. The Respondents justifiably complained that the Applicant, the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) and the Attorney General (AG) shirked and abdicated their
responsibilities as State Officers to uphold the national value and principles of
governance as provided under Articles 10 and 259(1) of the Constitution. Those officers,
when confronted with the request made by the ICC, firstly, for the arrest, and secondly,
for the surrender of the Respondents, instead of making inquiry whether the Pre-trial
Chamber of the ICC had jurisdiction to issue such orders without consulting Kenya
as a State Party to the Rome Statute or considering whether to assume jurisdiction
as provided under Section 18 of the ICA and in accordance with the Constitution of
Kenya and the Rome Statute of the ICC, filed the instant application.
9. The Respondents fundamental rights and freedoms to fair trial as enshrined under
Article 25(c) of the Constitution, which could not be limited or abridged under any
circumstances would be breached if the court allowed the application made by the
Applicants.
10. The position taken by the Applicant that the court had no jurisdiction to inquire into
the validity or otherwise of the order issued by the Pre-trial Chamber of the ICC was
not only unconstitutional but in breach of the self-same Rome Statute that provided
procedure to be adopted under Articles 17 and 70 of the Rome Statue of the ICC in
regard to offences against the administration of justice.
11. The Respondents, as Kenyan citizens, are entitled to exercise the right to citizenship
as provided under Article 12(1) (a) of the Constitution. That right included the benefit
of the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights and the right to be tried
before a court established under the Constitution if it was alleged he had committed
an offence within the jurisdiction of the court. State officers, such as the Applicant,
the AG, the DPP and the Inspector General of Police cannot abdicate the mandate
delegated to them by the constitution particularly, Article 21(1). Unless the contrary
was established, the Respondents were entitled, as a matter of their rights and
fundamental freedoms, to be tried in Kenya.
12. The ICA, which domesticated the Rome Statute of the ICC was assented to on December
24, 2008. That Act was subject to the Constitution which was promulgated on August
27, 2010 by virtue of Section 7(1) of the Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Sixth
Schedule) of the Constitution. Section 7(2) decreed, inter alia, that the provisions of
the Constitution would prevail to the extent of the conflict between the Constitution
and that law.
13. The request for inter alia, the search of the properties of the Respondents, in the
presence of investigators from the ICC, with a view to obtaining evidence in form of
cell phones, computers, diaries, notes or recordings of meetings or conversations,
financial or banking records from the Respondents is in breach of Article 50(2) (b) of
the Constitution that requires every accused person to be informed of the charge that
he would face with sufficient details to answer to it. It was also in breach of Article
50(2) (j) of the Constitution that required every accused person to be informed in
advance of the evidence that the prosecution intended to rely on, and have reasonable
access to that evidence.
14. The application is devoid of the evidence that the ICC intended to rely on in the
prosecution of the Respondents. The Applicant’s application is in breach of Section
23(2) of the ICA that mandated any request for assistance by the ICC be in conformity
with the Kenyan laws. It was apparent that the requests made to the Court indicated that
the Prosecutor of the ICC was still gathering evidence to prosecute the Respondents,
yet charges had already been laid against them before the ICC. In so far as the ICA
provided that an application for the surrender of the Respondents to the ICC could be
made without the Respondents being supplied with evidence in support of the charge
against them, such application is not sustainable and is not within the threshold
mandated by the Constitution.
15. The Applicant’s application in purported exercise of its mandate to cooperate with the
ICC could not be allowed unless and until the ICC and the Applicant complied with
the conditions precedent, in compliance with the Constitution of Kenya 2010, and the
ICA, the Rome Statute of the ICC and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the court.
16. The warrant of arrest issued by the court against the Respondents is lifted. Hence
,the Applicant is not to take any action in furtherance to the request made for the
surrender of the Respondents, unless and until there was compliance with the orders
of the Court.
The Application was dismissed.
4.4 CASES FROM THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
4.4.1 Who has the locus standi to bring an action on the right to a clean and healthy
environment?
Elizabeth Kurer & Detler Heir (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of aggrieved residents of Watamu
within Kilifi County) vs County Government of Kilifi & 4 Others
Petition No 23 of 2016
Environment & land Court at Malindi
Brief of the case:

Kioko Enterprises Ltd (The 4th Respondent), is the registered proprietor of land in Watamu
town on which Marval Limited (5th Respondent) operates a restaurant known as Comeback
Restaurant, Lounge and Disco. The Petitioners (Elizabeth Kurer & Detler Heir (Suing on
their behalf and on behalf of aggrieved residents of Watamu within Kilifi County) complain
that since the year 1998, the restaurant played very loud music which caused residents
of Watamu sleepless nights. They also argue that that the restaurant was interfering with
learning activities for children whose schools were situated less than 300 metres away from it.
Generally, their case is that the restaurant interferes with their peaceful and quiet enjoyment
of property and therefore it violated their right to a clean and healthy environment.
The Petitioners’ complaint against the first Respondent, the County Government of Kilifi was
that it failed to implement the Kilifi County Liquor Control Act which was being breached
at the restaurant. Their grievance against the second Respondent, the Officer Commanding
Police Division Kilifi, was that he declined to stop the activities of the fourth & fifth
Respondents and violated Article 35 of the Constitution, by declining to supply information
regarding the owners of the restaurant.

i. What is the extent of locus standi in actions founded on the right to a clean and healthy
environment?
ii. Who is legally authorized to make measurements to determine whether noise and
vibration levels exceeded what was legally permissible?
Held:
1. Section 3 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, No. 8 of 1999
(EMCA) provides for locus standi concerning actions founded on the right to a clean
and healthy environment. A person alleging a violation or threat to the right to a clean
and healthy environment, while acting on his behalf or on behalf of a group or class of
persons, members of an association or in public interest, is allowed to seek redress at
the Environment and Land Court. Such a person did not have to demonstrate personal
loss or injury arising from the offending conduct in relation to the environment.
2. Section 147 of EMCA vests NEMA power to make regulations for purposes of discharging
its duties. In exercise of those powers NEMA enacted the Environmental Management
and Coordination (Noise and Excessive Vibration Pollution) (Control) Regulations,
2009. The Regulations define noise pollution as the emission of uncontrolled noise
that was likely to cause danger to human health or damage to the environment.
Regulation 3(1) outlawed the making of or causing to be made any loud, unreasonable,
unnecessary or unusual noise, which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the
comfort, repose, health or safety of others and the environment.
3. Even if there were NEMA guidelines to measure noise and vibration levels, the
Petitioners are not authorized by NEMA to conduct measurements nor did they have
knowledge of the proper use of the equipment as provided by the regulations.
4. The measurement of noise levels and vibration levels to determine whether they
exceeded permissible levels, under the regulations, are to be done by a lead agency.
Under the regulations, a lead agency means any Government Ministry, department,
parastatal, State Corporation or local authority, in which any law vested functions
of control or management of any element of the environment or natural resources.
Measurement of noise levels could be done by NEMA after issuance of a reasonable
notice to NEMA, where there was no lead agency available to take the measurements
or where a lead agency had failed to take action.
The Petition was dismissed.
4.4.2 Customary law trusts are not subject to limitation periods under the Limitation of Actions
Act.
James M’Ngaruthi M’Rintari & another vs Muguna M’Rintari
ELC Suit No 35 of 2002
Environment and Land Court at Meru
November 22, 2017
Brief of the case;
The Defendant, a brother to the Plaintiffs, is the registered proprietor of the suit land. The
Plaintiffs filed the suit to claim a share of the land on the basis of a customary trust. In the
course of the suit, the second Plaintiff died and court orders were issued to the effect that
the suit for the second Plaintiff had abated and the Defendant was entitled to half the costs
of the suit from the legal representative of the deceased’s estate.
The Plaintiffs’ claim was that the land belonged to their family but it was registered in the
name of the Defendant because their father was dead at the time of registration. At the time,
there was a policy against registering land in the name of a mother who was a widow.
i. Whether there is a limitation period applicable to claims relating to customary law

trusts.
ii. Under what circumstances is a person deemed to be holding land under a customary
law trust?
Held:
1. Trusteeship would exist by virtue of the existence of the title as long as it was proved.
Section 20(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act would not apply to a trust existing
under customary law. Customary law trusts are not subject to a limitation period.
2. The question concerning whether a trust in existence is a question of fact to be proved

by evidence. The evidence showed that the allocation of the land was not an individual
affair but it was based on a clan ensuring that families were not left without land. The
plausible conclusion was that the Defendant was registered as a proprietor on behalf of
the family and the Defendant acquired the land in trust for his brothers.
3. Under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, all land would be held subject to
overriding interests. The overriding interests included customary law trusts.
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
4.4.3 The Effect of Death of a Donor of a Power of Attorney to a Suit Instituted by the Donee of
the Power Attorney
Loice Wanjiru Meru & 3 others v John Migui Meru [2017] eKLR
E.L.C Appeal No. 3A of 2017
Environment and Land Court at Murang’a
November 23, 2017
Brief of the case:
On May 4, 2015 the Respondent filed a suit in Murang’a as an attorney of his mother through
a general Power of Attorney registered at the Lands Office on the April 8, 2015 as 408/4/2015.
The Power of Attorney inter alia empowered and authorized the Respondent to demand, sue
and recover monies due and owing to her. The Respondent filed the suit in his own name
seeking among other things, the refund of the share of the rental income due to his mother
that had been unlawfully deducted by the Appellants as unpaid costs of the upkeep of the
building that they co-owned together.
The Respondent’s mother passed away on the June, 2015 and the Respondent was issued
with limited grant of letters of administration ad litem as the personal representative but
limited only to the purpose of substitution in the PMCC No 167 of 2015 at Murang’a.
On June 17 2015, the Appellants filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders that the suit be struck
out on the grounds inter alia that the stratum of the suit collapsed upon the death of the
donor of the Power of Attorney to the Respondent. On the November 2, 2015 the Trial Court
dismissed the Application. Aggrieved by the dismissal the Appellants filed the Appeal.
Issues:
i. Whether a suit abated on the death of a donor of the power of attorney.
ii. Whether a donee of a power of attorney could substitute himself as the Plaintiff in a
suit filed in his own name instead of the donor’s name upon the death of the donor.
iii. Whether grant of letters of administration ad litem could save a suit instituted by a
donee of a power attorney upon the death of the donor from abating.
iv. What was the extent to which a power of attorney could be used after the death of
the donor of the power of attorney?
Held
1. Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act read together with order 43 rule 1 (b) of the Civil
Procedure Rules provided for appeals that accrued by right.
2. In principle, every person who is a party in a civil proceeding is entitled to represent

himself personally or through an agent. Order 9 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
provides for recognized agents.
3. In the instant case the Plaintiff had a proper Power of Attorney to act for his mother in
the suit. Therefore, he was acting for a disclosed principal. This was disclosed both in
the Plaint and the registered Power of Attorney on record. There was no uncertainty
as to whose Attorney he was acting for. There were sufficient disclosures to put the
Defendant on notice as to the party on the opposite side and her claim against the
Defendant. The fact Plaintiff filed the suit in his name and not in the name of his
mother however, that was a procedural defect that was not fatal to the case.
4. The test on whether a suit had abated or not depends on whether the suit is considered
personal to the party. Causes of action relating to contracts and property are viewed
as independent of the party and do not abate when the party dies. However, in suits
that were personal to a party such as injuries, libel, slander and malicious prosecution,
the suits abated on the death of the party. The suit involved property and therefore is
not personal to the party. Suits have to be prosecuted by and against living persons.
5. Order 24 rules 1 to 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that the death of a Plaintiff can
not cause the suit to abate if the cause of action survives or continued. Where a sole
Plaintiff died and the cause of action survives, the court on application made in that
behalf caused the legal representative of the deceased to be made a party and proceed
with the suit. The substitution had to be done within a period of one year. However,
the court is clothed with discretion to so extend the time for substitution on good
reasons.
6. A Power of Attorney is extinguished on the death of the donor. It is plainly clear on

record that upon the death of the Deceased, the Power of Attorney donated to her son,
the Respondent, stood extinguished by operation of law. That was the effect of her
death on the Power of Attorney. However, her demise does not extinguish the cause of
action. It being not personal to the party, the cause of action survived the donor of the
extinguished Power of Attorney. Upon her death, the Respondent applied for letters
of grant of administration ad litem which were duly granted by the Court permitting
him to so substitute the deceased party. The Respondent is appearing as the personal
representative of the deceased party and not as an Attorney.
7. The wording of the grant of letters of administration ad litem state the purpose as for
substitution in the Murang’a case. There was no reason advanced by the Respondent
why he did not file the suit in his mother’s name. However, taken that the Plaintiff
brought the suit in his capacity as a holder of a Power of Attorney on behalf of his
mother and not on his own, and noting that the cause of action survived her, he is
right to apply for substitution of the deceased party, in whose authority he had filed
the suit in the first place. Any procedural defect could and had to be cured by Article
159 (2) (d) of the Constitution in the interest of the substantive justice of the case.
8. There is no reason to fault the Trial Court in holding that the suit did not abate.
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
4.5 DECISIONS FROM THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
4.5.1 Poor performance of an employee per se is not sufficient reason for termination of
employment.
Banking Insurance and Finance Union (Kenya) vs Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited and Another
Cause 95 of 2014
Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
August 29, 2016
Brief of the case
The claimant is a registered trade union and represents unionisable employees in the banking
industry. The Respondent is a commercial bank registered under the Banking Act and the
Interested Party is the Association under which the Respondent is a member. The Claimant
had a Recognition Agreement with the Respondent and a Collective Bargaining Agreement
with the Interested Party. The claim is that the Respondents arbitrarily and unlawfully
changed the terms and conditions of employment when they introduced Performance
Development Plans (PDPs) as one of the offences which could lead to loss of employment.
According to the claimant, unionised employees had received warning letters and some had
final warning letters for ‘non-performance’. The issue in dispute was that the Respondent
violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by un-procedurally and unlawfully intending
to terminate the services of unionisable employees who were issued with final warning letters.
The remedy sought to counter the alleged violation was that the Claimant be fully involved in
the development of the Performance Development Plans, Performance Improvement Plan
and the capability hearing and that the warning letters issued to unionisable employees
pursuant to the Performance Development Plans be declared null and void including the
2008 employment contracts.
Issued for Determination: -
i. Whether Performance Development Plans, Performance Improvement Plans and

Capability hearings as management tools replaced the set legal requirements that
addressed termination of employment due to poor performance or any other ground.
ii. Whether Performance Development Plans, Performance Improvement Plans and

Capability hearings as management tools negated agreed terms and conditions of
employment between the parties with reference to the Recognition Agreement or
Collective Bargaining and Agreement.
iii. Whether the Claimant could participate in an internal management process initiated
against its members by the employer.
iv. Whether the introduction of Performance Development Plans, Performance

Improvement Plans and Capability hearings in the employment contracts since 2008
violated Section 10 of the Employment Act.
v. Whether the Claimant had the right to register with the Court their dispute despite the
fact that the matter had been reported to the minister and there were issues that were
not addressed then.
Held:
1. Both parties agree that the Performance Development Plans and the Performance
Improvement Plan were management tools and part of management methods. Since
2008 when those tools were introduced by the Respondent, new contracts were
issued to the employees including the Claimant members. No complaint was raised
since and or with regard to the terms of the contracts. The parties had agreed that as
a management tool/practice the Performance Development Plans and Performance
Improvement Plan were the prerogative of the employer and as agreed under clause 17
of the Recognition agreement, there was a list of non-negotiable items. Those included
management methods. Those terms were agreed on in 2000 and the procedure to make
any changes was well set out, which the claimant had not addressed since. There was
no merit to change what the parties had agreed as binding between themselves.
2. Most contracts of employment referred to the employer’s right to terminate on the

ground of poor performance. That right had other set rights due to an employee such
as the right to give notice before termination and such rights demanded responsibility.
With regard to poor performance, an employer is required by the law, other than the
employment contract, to give the employee notice, give a hearing, and give reason(s)
for termination on such a ground. It was not only a contractual requirement.
3. There exists a legal requirement that before termination on grounds of poor

performance, there has to be genuine, valid and fair reasons. The subject employee
had to be given a hearing in the presence of the employee’s representative and most
fundamentally, there had to be a written notice stating the reasons upon which
the employer intended to terminate employment to enable the employee give their
defence. That notice had to be issued before an employer made a decision to terminate
employment. Upon the issuance of the written notice, the employee where unionised
was at liberty to notify their union.
4. There are various levels of performance assessment. There is the general requirement
of all employees of the Respondent to have a Performance Development Plans
annually with two (2) reviews. Where upon any review the employee is found not
to have satisfactorily achieved their plans, a reasonable plan was agreed upon. Upon
further review and the employee had not improved and is found to be of ineffective
performance, remedial action is taken, which included disciplinary action, capability
and grievance mechanisms.
5. The internal management system of the Respondent is such that the Performance
Development Plans ensures that employees met their business objectives and each
employee performed in accordance to their role. Where there is a lapse, there are internal
systems to address the same and ensure each employee ‘own’ their performance and
upon review, a reasonable plan was agreed upon. The Performance Development
Plans and the Performance Improvement Plan are good productive tools. Up and
until the capability hearings, there were clear steps the employer/Respondent could
follow internally. The Respondent global performance development has an elaborate
mechanism for training employees and line managers to ensure they understood and
appreciated Performance Development Plans purpose, aims and objectives.
6. The decision to terminate upon capability meeting was only made after the final
written warning and the employee had been given sufficient and reasonable time to
improve on their performance to the required level. Where the Respondent had not
followed those procedures in any given individual case, the Claimant could pursue
the same setting out the lapses and the unfairness of the same where there was such
evidence. Such cases could not be generalised for a blanket order. Each case had to be
on its merits.
7. Performance Development Plans and Performance Improvement Plan as well as

the capability hearings are internal and management prerogatives of the employer/
Respondent. Even where the employer allowes the employee to call their representative
at the capability hearing, the steps leading to and subject of the capability hearings
relate to internal mechanisms. At that point, the claimant union is not involved with
what the employer had put in place to ensure that all its employees had performed
to the required standards and that they are trained, couched and supported so as to
achieve the set goals. In addition, the Respondent as the employer has put the employee
whose performance was below expectation on a reasonable plan and given couching,
support or training for effective performance of their duties. Also, where there is a
capability hearing, the employer considered other measures to ensure the employee
had sufficient and reasonable time to be able to improve on their performance.
8. The right under Section 41 of the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution, as
read together with Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action required
a person faced with an adverse action to be supplied with any relevant materials,
couching, training, time and resources necessary to be able to prepare their defence,
improve on their performance, and build on their skills. An employer can not just
rely on the grounds of poor performance to terminate an employee. Such an employee
had been hired and found fit for the job and any deterioration in performance had
to be interrogated and effort made to address it. It can not be simply claimed that
the Claimant suddenly became a poor performer when all his quarterly performance
appraisals were in the positive. The Respondent has the duty to demonstrate that from
the October 2015 evaluation, the Claimant’s good performance deteriorated so fast
that it led to substantial loss.
9. The performance evaluation process has to be applied to enhance productivity of

employees. Where an employee performs poorly and was not productive as a result, the
matter is addressed in law, and Section 41 of the Employment Act procedures would
apply. Poor performance at work can be a ground for dismissal but the employer is
required, by law, to take the employee through the motions of the law before there is
a genuine, valid or just reason for termination.
10. Where the process of performance evaluation results in disciplinary action, the
Respondent having addressed the administrative part, the Recognition Agreement and
Collective Bargaining and Agreement between the parties requires that the Claimant
participates in such proceedings as that was their role to represent their employee/
member. The separation of roles had to come to bare as the parties had agreed to be
bound by terms and conditions that required the participation of the Claimant in any
disciplinary process against their member with the Respondent. That was also the
essence of Section 41 of the Employment Act.
11. It was not sufficient for an employer to cite poor performance as the reason for
termination. The employer had to demonstrate what measures had been put in place
to support a poor performing employee. That despite support, the poor performing
employee had not made effort to improve and hence the reason for termination.
12. The grounds that could have led to misconduct or gross misconduct under the policy of
the Respondent had not included poor performance. The Respondent as the employer
had the duty to demonstrate to the court that upon appraisal of the employee and
a finding that the Performance Development Plans was not met, sufficient and
reasonable plans were put in place. In addition, where there was still no improvement,
the capability hearing was put in motion before the notices envisaged under Section
41 of the Employment Act came to bare.
Claim partly allowed.
4.5.2 The Salaries and Remuneration Commission is required to observe fairness and adherence
to the dictates of the Constitution while undertaking a job evaluation.
Kamau Aidi & 47 others vs Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC)
Constitutional Petition No 6 of 2017
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
June 4, 2018
Brief of the case:
The Respondent undertook a job evaluation whose outcome was that the Petitioners were
placed in a lower job group with lower remuneration. The Petitioners complained that the
evaluation was done without their participation and was contrary to fair trade practices
and was also a breach of their right to fair administrative action. They asserted that under
Section 138 of the County Governments Act 2012, no employee could be evaluated with the
resultant outcome being that the employee would earn less or have his benefits diminished.
The Petitioners also said that under Article 230(5) of the Constitution, there was need to
ensure transparency and fairness in job evaluation.
Issues for Determination:-
i. Whether the job evaluation for the Clerks of County Assemblies was conducted in
accordance with constitutional provisions on the right to fair labour practices, the
right to fair administrative action and transparency and fairness.
ii. Whether the persons affected by a job evaluation were afforded an opportunity to
participate in the job evaluation.
iii. What remedies were appropriate
Held:
1. As a constitutional body, the Respondent was bound to undertake its duties while
following the dictates of the Constitution. Key dictates included fairness and
application of the law. The SRC had a constitutional mandate but it was not allowed
to act wantonly and where there was a breach of legal principles courts would not
hesitate to step in and correct the error.
2. The County Government was a microcosm of the National Government. The County
Assembly’s character mirrored that of the National Government. The Clerk of the
County Assembly was not a middle level management role but in the band of senior
specialists and top executives. The Clerk of the County Assembly would fit into band E
of the Patterson Banding and not D.
3. As the CEOs of the County Assemblies and the Clerks of the County Assemblies
could not be deemed to be in a subordinate position. The Salaries and Remuneration
Commission erred in banding a Clerk of the County Assembly in band B and D of the
Patterson classification instead of B and E3.
4. In the job evaluation, the Petitioners were afforded an opportunity to participate and
the extent of their involvement was as required. They were not expected to key in or
be present during the keying in of specifications.
5. The Respondent was a public body executing a constitutional mandate. The fact that it
fell into error was a misstep for which an order of costs would be an additional blow.
Therefore, each party ought to bear its costs.
Petition allowed.
4.5.3 A court can only interfere with an internal disciplinary action where there is a breach of
the process and with a view to setting that process right
Thomson Kerongo & 2 others v James Omariba Nyaoga & 3 others
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
November 24, 2017
Brief of the case:
In this case, the court considered the circumstances under which an employer could send
an employee on compulsory leave and the procedure for doing so. The court had occasion
to consider the circumstances under which it could interfere with an internal disciplinary
process and the extent of doing so. The Brief of the case of the case were as follows:-
The first and second Petitioners were members of the 3rd Petitioner, an organisation
registered under Section 10 of the Non-Governmental Organisation Coordination Act.
The first Petitioner was the Chairman of the 3rd Petitioner. The petition was filed against
James Omariba Nyaoga, the first Respondent who was the Clerk of the County Assembly,
Kisii County and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the second Respondent, a
constitutional commission established under Article 79 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as
read with Section 3(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003 and the Ethics
and Ant-Corruption Commission Act, 2011, with the mandate to investigate corruption and
related matters either on its own motion or upon receipt of a complaint.
The first Respondent was deployed as an interim clerk of the Kisii County Assembly by the
Transition Authority on secondment by letter dated February 25, 2013. He was appointed
as a substantive Clerk of the County Assembly on April 24, 2013 by the County Assembly
Service Board (the Board) subject to approval by the County Assembly, which approval was
given on April 29, 2013 by unanimous vote.
The former Speaker of the County Assembly of Kisii sent the first Respondent on compulsory
leave together with the Director of Finance, an action that they unsuccessfully challenged in
court through Kisumu ELRC Petition No. 12 and 18 of 2015 but which was resolved when the
two of them were cleared and their suspension lifted by the Board which reinstated them.
On July 5, 2017 the former Speaker authored a letter and handed it to the first Respondent
on July 17, 2017 sending him on compulsory leave. His compulsory leave was deliberated
upon by the Board at its meeting held on the same day whereupon a decision was made to
reinstate the first Respondent.
The Petitioner moved to the instant court on the grounds that the first Respondent was in
office unconstitutionally as he was sent on compulsory leave and the compulsory leave had
not been lifted, that the first Respondent was not fit to hold public office as he was under
investigation for misappropriation of public funds among other grounds
i. What were the circumstances under which an employer could send an employee on
compulsory leave?
ii. What was the procedure to be followed when a state officer had committed a breach of
the Leadership and Integrity Code?
iii. What were the circumstances in which a court could interfere with a disciplinary
action by an employer against an employee?
Held:
1. An authorised officer acting under lawful authority could take interlocutory action
against an officer working under his supervision before substantive action was taken
at a formal meeting to deliberate on the matter. That was because convening meetings
of disciplinary bodies could take time and circumstances could arise when immediate
action was necessary to address certain situations.
2. There was no law prohibiting an employer from sending an employee on compulsory

leave where the circumstances warranted it and provided it was an interim measure.
Compulsory leave had the effect of only removing an employee from the workplace
temporarily without interfering with his terms of service. An action was only illegal
if it was prohibited by law. Not all lawful matters were prescribed by law. On the
contrary it was only that which was prohibited by law that was illegal or unlawful.
3. The Speaker, as Chairman of the County Assembly Service Board, had authority to
send the first Respondent on compulsory leave pending the convening of a formal
meeting of the Board to deliberate on appropriate action to be taken against him.
4. The County Assembly Service Board undertook its business through formally
constituted meetings. In the instant case, two members of the County Assembly
Service Board met and nullified the letter of the Chairman sending the first Respondent
on compulsory leave on the very day that the letter was written. Unlike the Chairman
who was in office permanently, the other members could only act in a formally
convened meeting called by either the Chairman or the Secretary. Since no minutes
had been presented to the court to prove that there was a properly convened meeting
at which the Chairman’s letter to the first Respondent was discussed and a resolution
passed by the board, the nullification of the letter of the Chairman was unlawful
because there was no lawful authorised or regular meeting to discuss the issue.
5. The County Assembly Service Act, 2017 was assented to by the President on July 6,
2017 and came into force on July 27, 2017. The Act was not in force on July 5, 2017 when
the first Respondent was sent on compulsory leave and could not have been breached.
6. The first Respondent had not expressly denied the specific allegations of questionable
integrity and malfeasance against him. He cited the sour relationship between him
and the former speaker of the County Assembly as the reason for the letters sending
him on compulsory leave and the instant petition. He left almost all the allegations
against him unchallenged with the result that the court was left with the impression
that there had to be some validity in the allegations against him and valid reason for
the Petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.
7. Under Section 42 of the Leadership and Integrity Act, a person who alleged that a state
officer had committed a breach of the Leadership and Integrity Code was required to
lodge a complaint with the relevant public entity. Such public entity was the second
Respondent who was required to inquire into the complaint and determine whether
the state officer had contravened the Code of Leadership and Integrity. Section 43
provided that where the investigations disclosed that civil or criminal proceedings
ought to have been preferred against the state officer, the public entity had to refer
the matter to the Attorney General with respect to civil matters and to the Director
of Public Prosecutions with respect to criminal matters or to any other appropriate
authority.
8. Section 52 of the Leadership and Integrity Act extended the provisions of Chapter Six
of the Constitution and the Act to public officers, like the first Respondent. The primary
Act under which the second Respondent ought to have investigated public servants
was the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003. Under Section 64 of the Act
there was provision for disqualification of a person convicted of an offence under the
Act from holding public office. Section 62 of the Act provided for disciplinary action
against such an officer.
9. The only valid authority which could remove a public officer from office was the
employer of such an officer, after taking them through due process as provided in
Article 236 of the Constitution.
10. The first Respondent’s case could be addressed by the County Assembly Service Board
as the employer or the County Assembly which had oversight authority over all matters
in the County including the County Assembly Service Board. That was the procedure
that had been codified in the County Assembly Service Act, 2017.
11. The Court could not act directly and remove the first Respondent from office as that
would contravene the first Respondent’s constitutional rights to due process as
provided under Article 236. Due process was an internal disciplinary process to be
exercised by an employer. The Court was not expected to enter into the boardrooms of
the employers to micro manage their affairs.
12. The Employment Act did not intend that courts take away managerial prerogatives
from employers. To give the interim order would have had the effect of stifling the
management prerogative in staff administration. It would have meant the employer
did not have any more say in the contract of employment it had authored. That would
be contrary to the intention of the Employment Act.
13. The court could only interfere where there was breach of the process only with a view
to setting the process right. In the instant case the Petitioners had not alleged that the
relevant bodies being the County Assembly Service Board and the County Assembly
had been moved and had failed to take action. Neither had it been shown that the
Petitioners filed a complaint with the second Respondent which it had failed to act on.
14. The courts could order the second Respondent, the County Assembly Service Board
and the County Assembly, all of whom had the obligation to supervise and investigate
the first Respondent to perform their role of investigation. However, the Petitioners
had not prayed for those orders. They had not enjoined the employer of the first
Respondent who had failed to take disciplinary action against him and although the
second Respondent had been joined, no prayers were sought against it.
The petition was dismissed with an order that each party bears its own costs.
Chapter 5
HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT
HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT
5.0 Introduction
D
uring the year under review, the Judiciary strived to ensure that there was
sufficient human resources in courts, and that the staff possessed the relevant
skills to discharge their duties. It therefore continued to recruit for various posts
and to carry out transfers, promotions and deployment of staff to various court stations
and directorates. Staff training and capacity building programmes were also conducted to
improve effectiveness in job performance, along with attachments and pupilages.
Significant achievements were recorded in the year, the major ones being the successful
conclusion of the Judiciary Organizational Review, the Judiciary Training Policy and the
Records Management Curriculum.
In the FY2017/18, a consultant was hired to carry out a comprehensive Training Needs
Assessment for the Judiciary. The consultants have developed tools for collecting data and
have started engaging with the stakeholders. The process will be concluded in the next
financial year.
As part of the process of ensuring compliance with the values and principles enshrined in
the Constitution, various statutes and other human resource policies and regulations, the
Judiciary conducted a wealth declaration exercise for Judges, Judicial officers and staff. (It
also continued to implement the Values and Principles of Article 10 and 232). Compliance
was equally observed in internal processes by enforcing the Public Finance Management
Act (2012), Public Officer Ethics Act (2003), the Employment Act, (2007), the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, (2007) the NHIF Act, NSSF Act, Pensions Act, among others.
All these activities were achieved despite challenges of deficits in financial and human
capital resource allocations. In the next financial year the Judiciary will conclude the
ongoing activities and continue implementing the recommendations of the Organizational
Review exercise.
5.1 Key milestones
The highlights of the judiciary’s human resource management achievements during the
year include the following:
5.1.1 Human resource manual review taskforce
The Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual Taskforce was constituted to carry
out a review of existing Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual and identify gaps
and capacity weakness in relation to best practices and the public service management
standards. The Task force has conducted various activities including collecting views from
judges, judicial officers, judicial staff and other stakeholders. It will continue with its
activities in the next financial year
5.1.2 Performance appraisal system
The Performance Appraisal System (PAS) was piloted in FY 2015/16 and the launch took place
in the last quarter of 2016. The primary objective of performance management is to ensure
quality of service delivery as anchored in the Judiciary blueprint and Sustaining Judiciary
Transformation (SJT) is attained. The SJT focuses on enhancing individual accountability,
enhancing institution accountability and entrenching performance measurement,
monitoring and evaluation.
This report is the second since the launch of SJT and the third cycle of performance appraisal
since its launch. In the FY 2017/18 significant milestones were noted. First, PAS was
institutionalised in every court station, directorate, administrative units and offices. A total
of 156 court stations out of 164 had their staff set targets, and 3,582 employees out of 4,945
- constituting 72.4 per cent as at December 2017 - had set their targets. Secondly, Judges,
head of stations, judicial officers, and judicial staff were sensitised about the need to embrace
PAS. Thirdly, there has been continuous monitoring of the process which has resulted in
recommendations for review and improvement of the PAS tools. Fourthly, the PAS process
has enhanced interventions on various HR processes such as training, deployment and job
rotations. Fifth, there is top management support as PAS is one of the strategies addressed in
SJT. And finally, the continuous rollout and sustainable monitoring by various stakeholders
and demand for individual and institutional accountability have made PAS a living reality.
However, limited funding posed a serious threat for timely annual implementation of PAS
activities and programmes.
The Performance Appraisal System (PAS) home page.
5.1.3 Organisation review
A consultant was engaged in the FY 2016/17 to review the Judiciary Structure. The consultancy
has been completed and a report submitted to the Judicial Service Commission, which was
adopted and is awaiting launch and implementation in the FY2018/19.
5.1.4 Recruitment
The Judiciary is committed to attracting, developing and retaining highly skilled and
motivated professionals to implement its mandate. During the year, the Judiciary conducted
a recruitment exercise to fill vacancies in critical areas in its establishment.
1. The Deputy Chief Registrar
The JSC undertook interviews for the position of Deputy Chief Registrar of the Judiciary. The
process will be completed in the following year.
2. Judicial Officers, Chairpersons of Tribunals, Law Clerks
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) concluded a recruitment process for various officers
whereby 67 people were appointed. Of these, 49 of them – or 73 per cent - were female and
18 – or 27 per cent - were male. Some 42 Resident Magistrates were appointed, 10 Law
Clerks and 15 others in different positions as indicated in table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Judicial officers and legal researchers/clerks
No. of No. of No.

Position No. Appointed
Vacancies Applicants Interviewed
31 Female
1 Resident Magistrate 50 310 89 42
11 Male
Chairperson
2 1 10 6 1 Male
Corporative Tribunal
Chairperson, Tourism
3 1 1 Male
Tribunal
6 Female
4 Law Clerks 126 20 10
4 Male
12 Female
5 Legal Researchers 100 256 13
1 Male
49 Female
Total 67 18 Male
3. Judicial staff
Due to the review of the Organization Structure that was ongoing during the reporting
period, the Judiciary froze recruitment of most of the positions previously declared vacant
in financial year 2016/17. However, renewal of contracts for four Law clerks and twenty 27
Legal Researches was concluded during the period under review. Recruitment of the Chief
of Staff and Domestic workers to Chief Justice and Retired Chief Justice were filled during
the year.
4. Advertised positions
The recruitment of 283 judicial staff was put on hold awaiting completion of the Organization
Review process. Some 31 positions of judicial officers and 12 members of Tribunals was at
various stages of recruitment as indicated in Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.
Table 5.2: Advertised positions: judicial officers

Position No. of positions Status
1 Registrar, Environment Court 1 Ongoing
2 Resident Magistrates 30 Ongoing

TOTAL 31
Table 5.3: Advertised positions: tribunals
S.NO POSITION NO. OF POSITIONS STATUS
1 Registrar Tribunals 1 Pending
2 Chairman, National Environment Tribunal 1 Pending

3 Chairperson Cooperative Tribunal 1 Concluded
4 Deputy Chair Person, Cooperative Tribunal 1 Pending
5 Chair Person, Sports Tribunal 1 Pending
6 Chair Person, Tourism Tribunal 1 Concluded
Nominee of the Judicial Service Commission to
7 1 Concluded
SRC
8 Chairperson, Micro and Small Enterprises Tribunal 1 Cancelled
Vice-Chairperson, Micro and Small Enterprises

9 1 Cancelled
Tribunal
Re-advertisement: Chairperson of the National

10 1 Pending
Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal
11 Member, Political Parties Dispute Tribunal 1 Pending

Chairperson, Communications and Multimedia
12 1 Pending
Appeals Tribunal.
TOTAL 12
Table 5.4: Pending advertised positions of judicial staff as at 30th, june 2018
S/NO. POSITION NO. OF POSITIONS
1 Law Clerks 5
2 Legal Researchers 100
3 Director, Human Resource & Administration 1
4 Deputy Director , Talent Management 1
S/NO. POSITION NO. OF POSITIONS
5 Deputy Director, Human Resources Management 1
6 Executive Officers 68
7 Personal Secretary III 25
8 Personal Secretary II 25
9 Secretarial Assistants II 30
10 Court Interpreters 20
11 Transport/Fleet Manager 1
12 Monitoring and Evaluation Officer ( JTI) 1
13 Partnerships and Linkages Officer ( JTI) 1
14 Policy Analyst ( JTI) 2
15 Finance Officer ( JTI) 1
16 Supply Chain Officer 1 ( JTI) 1
TOTAL 283
5.2 Authentication of certificates
With the increased number of staff recruited during the last three reporting periods, and
in line with regulations to ensure that all staff held authentic certificates, the Judiciary
continued to undertake authentication of professional and academic certificates presented
newly appointed staff and those seeking career advancement through promotions/ re-
designations. A total of 1,655 certificates were presented to the various examining bodies
for authentication and the outcome is as indicated in table 5.6 below.
Table 5.5: Authentication of certificates f/y 2017/2018

S.NO. CERTIFICATES NUMBER OF COMMENTS / ACTION
CERTIFICATES
VERIFIED
1 KCSE 836 824 were genuine. 12 KCSE Certificates were
forged. Disciplinary action is ongoing
2 KNEC Secretarial 305 305 verified as genuine
certificates
3 Degree Certificates 279 275 were genuine; Four (4) were forged.
Disciplinary action is ongoing
4 Diploma Certificates 235 235 verified as genuine
Total 1,655
Out of the 1,655 professional and academic certificates presented for authentication, sixteen
(16) were found not to be authentic. Appropriate disciplinary action has been instituted
against the affected employees.
5.3 Career Progression and Promotions
5.3.1 Promotion of Judicial Officers
During the reporting period, the Commission conducted suitability interviews for the
promotion of Magistrates and Kadhis. The promotion process will be concluded in the next
financial year.
5.3.2 Promotions of Judicial Staff in PLS 9 and above.
Promotion of staff by the Judicial Service Commission is meant to boost morale and improve
productivity as well as guiding the succession plan of the Judiciary and the Commission.
During the year under review, the Commission promoted 131 judicial staff in the Secretarial
Staff and Executive Assistant cadres who had undergone suitability interviews in the
previous financial year as indicated in Table. 5.6.
Table:5.6 Judicial Staff promoted during the 2017/2018 Financial Year

S/NO. CADRE PROMOTED NO. OF STAFF
PROMOTED
1 Principal Executive Secretary 4
2 Senior Executive Secretary 8
3 Executive Secretary 11
4 Senior Personal Secretary 14
5 Personal Secretary I 3
7 Senior Secretarial Assistant 17
8 Principal Executive Assistant 1
9 Chief Executive Assistant 5
10 Senior Executive Assistant 14
11 Executive Assistant 42
TOTAL 131
5.3.3 Promotions of judicial staff in PLS 8 and below.
The Commission ratified promotion of 189 judicial staff in PLS 8 and below whose cases of
promotion fall within the purview of the Judiciary Human Resource Management Selection
Board (JHRMSB) as shown in Table 5.7
Table 5.7: Promotions for judicial staff in PLS 8 and below.

S.NO. PREVIOUS POSITION PROMOTED TO NO. OF STAFF
1 Archives Assistant III Archives Assistant II 2
2 Artisan III Artisan II 1
3 Cleaning Supervisor II Cleaning Supervisor I 5
4 Support Staff Supervisor Cleaning Supervisor II 8
5 Driver II Driver I 2
6 Driver III Driver II 19
7 Clerical Officer Higher Clerical Officer 74
8 Process Server II Process Server I 1
9 Secretarial Assistant II Secretarial Assistant I 3
10 Security Guard III Security Guard II 5
11 Higher Clerical Officer Senior Clerical Officer 35
12 Senior Driver II Senior Driver I 3
13 Driver I Senior Driver II 3
14 Process Server I Senior Process Server 1
15 Security Guard I Senior Security Guard II 2
16 Storekeeper Senior Storekeeper 5
17 Storekeeper II Storekeeper I 1
18 Support Staff II Support Staff I 6
19 Senior Support Staff Support Staff Supervisor 12
20 Telephone Operator II Telephone Operator I 1
TOTAL 189
5.4 Confirmation in appointment
In line with the staff regulations and Employment Act Cap 226 No. 11 of 2007, Section 42(2)
which requires that an employee be confirmed in appointment after six months from the
date of appointment, the following 791 judicial staff were confirmed in appointment during
the reporting period.
Table 5.8: Staff confirmed in appointment

S/NO. DESIGNATION NO. OF STAFF
CONFIRMED
1 Accountant I 14
2 Accountant II 6
3 Assistant Director – Finance 1
4 Assistant Director – ICT 1
5 Assistant Director - Performance 2
6 Asst. Director - Public Communication 2
7 Chief Accountant 1
8 Chief HRM Officer 5
9 Chief Internal Auditor 1
10 Chief Procurement Officer 1
11 Deputy Director - Administration 1
12 Deputy Director - Performance 1
13 Deputy Registrar 1
14 Executive Officer 1
15 Executive Officer I 1
16 Executive Officer II 3
17 HRM Officer II 2
18 ICT Officer 1 3
19 ICT Officer II 4
20 Internal Auditor I 1
22 Principal HRM Officer 1
S/NO. DESIGNATION NO. OF STAFF
CONFIRMED
23 Principal Risk & Internal Systems Auditor 1
24 Procurement Officer I 1
25 Procurement Officer II 14
26 Programme Officer 2
27 Public Communications Officer II 1
28 Regional Assistant Director – Finance 6
29 Regional Assistant Director-HR & Admin 5
30 Regional Principal Accountant 2
31 Registrar 1
32 Senior Accountant 3
33 Senior Archives Assistant 1
34 Senior Executive Secretary 1
35 Senior ICT Officer 3
36 Senior Internal Auditor 2
37 Senior Procurement Officer 2
38 Senior Secretarial Assistant 1
39 Supplies Officer 1 4
40 Archives Assistant 2 34
41 Archives Assistant 3 4
42 Archivist 3 19
43 Auditor II 4
44 Clerical 238
45 Clerical Officer 7
46 Clerical Officer 199
47 Clerical Officer 2 15
48 Court Bailiff 6
49 ICT Officer 1 1
50 ICT Officer 2 13
51 ICT Officer 3 11
52 Internal Auditor 1 3
53 Personal Secretary 2 15
54 Personal Secretary 3 46
55 Process Server 2 16
56 Secretarial Assistant 2 52
TOTAL 791
5.5 Separation of Employees
During the year under review, 113 employees exited from the Judiciary due to retirement,
resignations or death. Others exits were due to dismissals, expiry of contracts and lapsing
of leave of absence. Sixty one officers retired from the Judiciary on attainment of the
mandatory retirement age. Table 5.9 below provides a breakdown of employee separation
during the period.
Table 5.9: Employees separation cases
S/No. NATURE OF CASES NUMBER
1 Hon. Judge appointed to State Office (Attorney General) 1
2 Hon. Judge deceased 1
3 Contract Expiry 7
4 Dismissal ( JSC & HRMAC decisions) 13
5 End of Secondment 1
6 Resignation 14
7 Normal Retirement 61
8 Voluntary Retirement at 50 years 1
9 Retirement under Public Interest 1
10 Death 13
Total 113
Employees transfer is normal and a good Human Resource practice, which is in line with
the Judiciary’s policy of providing public services to all parts of the country. The Human
Resource Directorate is tasked with implementing transfer of employees as per the Judiciary
Transfer Policy and Guidelines as well as provisions of the service charter. In implementing
the transfers, the employees are given at least one month to enable them prepare to move to
new stations. Transfers can either be initiated by the management or by the member of staff.
During the 2017/2018 reporting year, the Directorate effected 578 transfers. Of these, 458
were management-initiated and 120 were staff-initiated. Some 67 requests were declined.
Table 5.14: Management initiated transfers

S/NO. MONTH NUMBER OF TRANSFERS
1 July 2017 41
2 August 2017 52
3 September 2017 38
4 October 2017 62
5 November 2017 25
6 December 2017 28
7 January 2018 54
8 February 2018 32
9 March 2018 43
10 April 2018 41
11 May 2018 17
12 June 2018 26
TOTAL 458
Table 5.15: Approved employee-initiated transfers

S/NO. MONTH APPROVED REQUESTS
1 July 2017 5
2 Aug 2017 9
3 Sept 2017 2
4 Oct 2017 12
5 Nov 2017 13
6 Dec 2017 19
7 Jan 2018 14
8 Feb 2018 15
9 March 2018 5
10 April 2018 7
11 May 2018 10
12 June 2018 9
TOTAL 120
5.6 Disciplinary control
5.6.1 Complaints /petitions against Judges
In the year under review, the Judicial Service Commission received 74 Complaints and
petitions against Honourable Judges, which were considered and were at various levels of
investigations as at the end of the reporting period.
Table 5.16: Summary of complaints examined by JSC FY 2017/18

S.NO. DETAILS NUMBER
1. Complaints pending as at 30th, June 2017 26
2. Complaints received during the year 74
3. Total Complaints 100
4. Complaints concluded 71
5. Complaints pending as at 30th, June 2018 29
5.6.2 Disciplinary Matters for Judicial Officers.
In the FY 2017/18, the Judicial Service Commission received a total of fifteen (15) cases against
judicial officers. Out of these, three (3) were fresh disciplinary cases while twelve (12) were
pending cases from the previous year including three appeals/reviews. A total of five (5)
cases were heard and concluded. This represents 33.3% of the total cases. 10 disciplinary
cases were pending as at the end of the reporting period as shown in Table5.17.
Table 5.17: Disciplinary Matters for Judicial officers Handled in FY 2017/18
PARTICULARS NO OF COMPLAINTS
Discipline cases pending as at 30th June,2017 12
New discipline cases received 3

Appeals/Reviews received 0
Total complaints 15
Total discipline concluded in FY/2017/2018 5
Discipline cases pending as at 30th June,2018 10
The Judicial Service Commission dismissed one judicial officer, retired one on medical
grounds and reinstated one, while one review was allowed during the FY 2017/18 as indicated
in the table 5.18.
Table 5.18: Classification of cases for Judicial Officers concluded by Outcome FY 2017/18
OUTCOME NUMBER
Dismissal 1
Appeal disallowed 1
Reviews disallowed 1
Retirement on medical grounds 1
Reinstated 1
Total complaints concluded 5
5.6.3 Disciplinary matters for judicial staff, pls 9 and above.
The Judicial Service Commission receives and considers disciplinary matters involving
Judicial Staff. It has, however, delegated disciplinary matters for staff in PLS 8 and below to
the Human Resource Management Advisory Committee (HRMAC). During the year under
review, the Commission received 40 disciplinary matters against judicial staff in PLS 9 and
above. Out of these, nine were fresh cases while 10 were pending cases from the previous
year. There were 21 appeals. A total of 19 cases were heard and concluded. This represents
47.5 per cent of the total cases. Some 21 disciplinary cases were pending as at the end of the
reporting period as shown in Table 5.19.
Table 5.19: JSC Disciplinary Matters for Judicial Staff Handled in FY 2017/18.
PARTICULARS NO OF COMPLAINTS
Discipline cases pending as at 30th June, 2017 10
New discipline cases received 9
Appeals/Reviews received 21
Total complaints 40
Discipline cases concluded in FY/2017/2018 19
Discipline cases pending as at 30th June, 2018 21
Table 5.20: Classification of cases for judicial staff concluded by outcome FY 2017/18
OUTCOME NUMBER
Dismissal 1
Appeal disallowed 13
Reviews disallowed 5
Appeals /Reviews allowed 0
Total complaints concluded 19
Table 5.21: Summary of disciplinary matters handled by JSC in FY 2017/18.

PARTICULARS FY2015/16 FY2016/17 FY 2017/18
Matters brought from previous year 18 18 25
New Matters received 4 21 12
Appeals/Reviews received 16 20 21
Total 38 59 58
Total concluded 20 31 24
Number of matters pending at end of year. 18 28 34
In the financial year 2017/18 the Judicial Service Commission received 58 disciplinary
matters against judicial officers and staff in PLS 9 and above. There was a marginal decrease
of 1.7 per cent in the disciplinary matters handled compared to the previous year. The
number of pending disciplinary matters, however, increased by 21.4 per cent for the period
under review compared to the previous year.
5.6.4 Disciplinary matters for judicial staff, pls 8 and below.
Discipline matters in PLS 8 and below are presented before the Human Resource Management
Advisory Committee (HRMAC). Under the Labour Laws, staff discipline matters are supposed
to be finalized within six months of commencement.
In FY 2017/2018, the HRMAC received 94 fresh disciplinary matters of which five were
pending in court. 30 matters were deliberated by the Committee and finalized within six
months. Some 36 matters carried over from the previous financial year were also deliberated
by the committee and finalized within the reporting period.
Table 5.22: Disciplinary Matters Registered during appraisal year 2017/2018

S/NO. CADRE DISCIPLINARY RESOLVED PENDING
MATTERS DISCIPLINARY DISCIPLINARY
REGISTERED
MATTERS MATTERS
1. Judicial Staff 94 66 28
Table 5.23: Registered Disciplinary matters by cadre in FY 2017/18
S/NO. CADRE NUMBER

1 Support Staff 9
2 Accountants 6
3 Clerical Officers 48
4 Archivist 2
5 Drivers 5
6 Secretaries 7
7 HR 1
8 ICT 2
9 Security Guard 4
10 Procurement/storekeeper 4
11 Legal Researcher 1
12 Executive Officers/Assistants 5
Total 94
5.6.5 Analysis matters carried over and finalized in FY 2017/2018
A total of 36 matters carried over from the previous financial year were also deliberated on
by the committee and finalized within the reporting period as indicated in table 5.19 below.
Table 5.24: 36 Disciplinary matters carried over from FY 2016/17
S/NO. CADRE NUMBER
1 Support Staff 2
2 Accountants 7
4 Archivist 1
5 Drivers 2
6 Secretaries 1
7 HR 1
8 Process server 2
9 Telephone Operator 1
Total 36
5.6.6 Disciplinary Matters Finalized In FY 2017/2018
Thirty disciplinary matters were deliberated by the Human Resource Advisory Committee
and finalized within six months and various disciplinary actions taken as indicated in table
5.20 and 5.21below.
Table 5.25: Finalized Matters in FY2017/18

S/NO. CADRE NUMBERS
1 Support Staff 4
2 Accountants 1
4 Archivist 1
5 Drivers 1
6 Secretaries 2
7 HR 1
8 ICT 1
9 Legal Researcher 1
Total 30
Six members of staff were interdicted out of the 30 freshly-concluded matters within the six
months. Twelve were placed on suspension and another 12 issued with show-cause letters
as indicated in the table below.
Table 5.26: Case type and action

S/NO. NATURE OF CHARGE NO. OF SHOW SUSPENSION
CHARGES CAUSE
1 Absenteeism 15 5 10 0
2 Forgery/Interference with court records 2 2 0 0
3 Gross misconduct/misuse of public 13 5 2 6

vehicle/negligently mishandling files
Total 30 12 12 6
5.6.7 Disciplinary actions on disciplinary matters received in fy 2017/18
Twenty five interdictions were effected out of the 94 disciplinary matters registered in the FY
2017/18 accounting for 26 per cent of disciplinary action. Some 53 of them were placed on
suspension and another 16 issued with show-cause letters as indicated in Table 5.21 below:
Table 5.27: Registered Disciplinary Matter as per action taken
S/NO. NATURE OF CHARGE NO. CHARGED ACTION TAKEN
Interdiction Suspension Show Cause
1 Absenteeism 34 1 30 3
2 Bribery/Soliciting for bribes 3 3 0 0
Careless driving/Traffic offense,

3 3 3 0 0
Misuse of vehicle
4 Defilement 1 1 0 0
Document/Illegal Preparation of
sureties/Interference with court
5 12 4 7 1
record/making documents without
authority
Giving false information/Gross
6 misconduct/ Insubordination/ 39 12 16 11
Misplacing files/Use of abusive
7 Misappropriation of funds 2 1 0 1
Total 94 25 53 16
5.6.8 Disciplinary Actions Carried Over From FY 2016/17
Some 23 members of staff out of the 36 whose disciplinary matters were carried over from the
previous financial year were placed on suspension, accounting for 64 per cent. Three were
interdicted, while four were issued with show-cause letters and one had salary stoppage as
indicated in table 5.28 below.
Table 5.28: Analysis of disciplinary matters carried forward from FY 2011/17 and action taken in
FY 2017/18.
S/NO. NATURE OF CHARGE NO. INTERDICTION SALARY SHOW SUSPENSION
CHARGED STOPPAGE CAUSE
1 Absenteeism 19 1 1 3 14
2 Gross misconduct 11 4 0 1 6
3 Conspiracy to defeat 3 2 0 0 1
justice
4 Misappropriation of 3 1 0 0 2
funds/loss of funds
Total 36 8 1 4 23
5.7 Training and Development
To ensure efficient delivery of services, the Judiciary provided various training opportunities
to more than 725 officers. There was a sharp decline in training opportunities constituting
49 per cent compared to the previous year as indicated in table 5.29. The training offered
included induction programmes, career progression courses and continuous development
Programs to equip officers with the requisite skills and competencies. It also offered
pupillage and attachments to 542 students, while 3,089 law students were offered judicial
attachments in various courts during the period under review.
Table 5.29.
S.NO. TRAINING AREA TARGET GROUP FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Judicial Officers and Judicial
1 Pre-retirement training 45 0
Staff
Strategic leadership Judicial officers, Deputy
2 development program (in Registrars, Directors and those 6 15
collaboration with JTI) in top leadership positions
Senior Management Course (in Executive Officers, Executive
3 38 52
Collaboration with JTI) Assistants, Accountants
Supervisory Skills Development Executive Assistants, head of

4 36 104
Course (in Collaboration with JTI) section, clerical officers
Induction of newly recruited Newly recruited clerical officers,

5 Staff (in collaboration with the ICT officers, Archivists and 1,137 409
JTI) secretaries
Defensive driving course for

6 Drivers 30 0
drivers (in Collaboration with JTI)
Facilitation of members to
IHRM Annual conference for
7 attend professional workshops 30 20
registered members
and Membership renewal
Team building activity for the

8 Team building activities 53 75
HR department members
9 Capacity building for HR staff All HR staff 55 50
TOTAL 1430 725
Career progression courses were conducted at the Kenya School of Government. They
included Strategic Leadership Development Program (SLDP), Senior Management Course
(SMC) and Supervisory Skills Development Course (SSDC). The Continuous Development
Programs were conducted by the IHRM in form of conferences. The total number of training
sessions conducted per course and gender are shown in the table 5.30 below:
Table 5.30: Summary of courses for FY 2017/18 by Gender
S/NO. COURSE MALE FEMALE TOTAL

1 SLDP 10 5 15
2 SMC 18 26 52
3 SSDC 55 46 104
4 IHRM 9 11 20
TOTALS 85 81 191
Figure 5.1: Percentage of Courses by Gender
Figure 5.2: Distribution of Courses by Course Type
5.13.1 Nomination Criteria

The trainees were selected from their respective Court stations, Directorates and Functional
Units and each of these were required to submit their nominees using the criteria below:
The training committee had set out the following selection criteria:
1. Registrars and Directors nominate two participants for the KSG courses from their
respective units.
2. That the Registrar of the Magistrates Courts communicates to all head of stations to
nominate two participants and forward the names to their respective Regional HR
officers for compilation and forwarding to Director HR.
3. The Kenya School of Government (KSG) courses being considered include; Supervisory
Skills Development Course (SSDC), Senior Management Course (SMC), and Strategic
Leadership Development Programme (SLDP).
4. The nomination criteria should take into consideration the gender and skills gap.
5. Priority was to be given to those who had not attended any courses.
5.7.1 KSG Courses Conducted In FY 2017/18 per School
The table below indicates the courses that were conducted and the school in which they
were conducted.
Table 5.31: Courses completed in the FY 2017/18
S/NO. SCHOOL COURSE NUMBER

1. NAIROBI – LOWER KABETE SLDP 15
SMC 13
2. MOMBASA
SSDC 18
SSDC 31
SMC 39
4. BARINGO
SSDC 1
5. EMBU SSDC 54
6. IHRM 20
TOTAL 180
Table 5.25 above shows courses conducted per school and course. A total of 160 courses
were conducted in various schools while 20 people attended the continuous development
programs bringing the total to 180.
The tables below show the summary of the courses by Designation and gender.
Table 5.32: SLDP Courses FY 2017/18

DESIGNATION NO. TRAINED BY GENDER
Male Female Total
1 Registrar 1 1
2 Assistant Registrar 0 1 1
3 Director 1 0 1
4 Assistant Director 4 0 4
5 Chief Magistrate 0 1 1
6 Senior Principal Magistrate 0 1 1
7 Principal Magistrate 1 1 2
8 Senior Resident Magistrate 1 1
9 Deputy Registrar 1 1 2
10 CPCO 1 0 1
Total 10 5 15
Table 5.33: SMC Courses FY 2017/18

DESIGNATION NO. TRAINED BY GENDER
Male Female TOTAL
1 Senior Personal Secretary 0 3 3
2 Executive Secretary 0 1 1
3 Accountant 5 3 8
4 ICT officer 1 0 2 2
5 Executive Assistant 6 4 10
6 Senior Executive Assistant 3 0 3
7 Personal Secretary 0 3 3
8 Senior Resident Magistrate 1 0 1
9 Assistant Accountant 0 1 1
10 Executive Officer 1 2 3
11 Senior Clerical Officer 1 2 3
12 Higher Clerical Officer 0 1 1
13 Senior Accountant 0 1 1
14 HRM Officer 1 0 1
15 HRM Assistant 1 0 1 1
16 Archivist 0 2 2
TOTAL 18 26 44
Table 5.34: SSDC Courses FY 2017/18

S/NO. DESIGNATION NO. TRAINED BY GENDER
Male Female Total

1 Executive Officer 3 0 3
2 Senior Executive Assistant 2 3 5
3 Executive Assistant 17 9 26
4 Procurement Officer 2 1 3
5 Chief Librarian 1 0 1
6 Library Assistant 1 0 1
7 Procurement Assistant 0 1 1
8 Senior Archivist Assistant 0 1 1
9 HRM Assistant 2 1 3
10 Accountant 1 1 2
Accounts Assistant 1 0 1
11 Storekeeper 4 1 5
12 Senior Store Keeper 1 2 3
13 Personal Secretary 0 5 5
14 Secretarial Assistant 8 8
15 Senior Clerical Officer 14 4 18
16 Higher Clerical Officer 5 7 12
17 Clerical Officer 0 2 2
18 Support Staff Supervisor 1 0 1
TOTAL 55 46 101
Table 5.35: Total number trained per Cadre in the FY 2017/18

IHRM PROGRAMMES NO. TRAINED BY GENDER
MALE FEMALE TOTAL
1. Ag. Director 0 1 1
2. Deputy Director 0 1 1
3. Senior Assistant Director 0 1 1
4 Assistant Director 7 2 9
5. Principal Human Resource Management 0 2 2
Officer
6. Chief Human Resource Management Officer 2 4 6
TOTAL 9 11 20
GRAND TOTAL 180
The above tables confirm that all cadres were represented when selecting participants.
Some 180 participants were trained for both Career progressive courses and continuous
development programs against a target of 200. This represents 90 per cent outreach. This
was a great achievement given the austerity measures imposed by the National Treasury
during the implementation period.
5.8 General Attachment and Pupillage
In FY 2017/18, the Judiciary offered 542 opportunities for pupillage and general attachment
as indicated in table 5.36 below.
Table 5.36: Pupillage and Attachment FY 2017/18

S/NO. DESCRIPTION INSTITUTION OFFICE ATTACHED NO.
1 Pupillage Kenya School of Law Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High 152
Courts and Magistrates courts.
2 Industrial Various Learning Respective directorate and court stations
Attachment Institutions
HR & Admin 72
Accounts 73
DBS 4
DPAC 6
18
PMD
Finance 4
Library 12
ICT 71
DSCM 71
Various Courts 58
JTI 1
GRAND TOTAL 542
5.9 Judicial Attachment
In the FY 2017/18, the Judiciary was able to place 3,089 students on judicial attachment. The
universities and the number of students attached from each university are as shown in the
table 5.37 and figure 5.3 below:
Table 5.37: Judicial Attachment FY 2017/18

S/No. UNIVERSITY JULY TO DEC 2017 JAN TO APRIL ‘18 MAY TO AUGUST ‘18 TOTAL
1 Africa Nazarene 0 18 0 18
2 Riara 0 90 0 90
3 Kabarak 0 214 0 214
4 JKUAT 121 100 143 364
5 Mount Kenya 128 104 165 397
6 Catholic University 135 156 187 478
7 Strathmore University 0 151 0 151
8 University of Nairobi 253 177 0 430
9 Kenyatta University 487 0 170 657
10 Kisii University 66 0 63 129
11 Moi University 161 0 0 161
TOTAL 1,351 1010 728 3,089
Figure 5.3: No. of Students on Judicial Attachment
Attachment and Pupilage
Table.5.38. Attachments and Pupillage FY 2015/16 – FY 2017/18.

S.NO. CATEGORY 2015/16 2015/17 2017/18
1. Clinical attachments 841 2,306 3,089
2. Pupillage 48 87 152
3. Other areas of specialization 113 493 390
Total 1,002 2,886 3,631
There was an increase of 25.8 per cent in the number of students seeking attachment and
pupillage opportunities as indicated in table 5.38 above. This can be attributed to the unique
position of the Judiciary as the lead institution offering judicial and clinical attachment and
the nature of programmes offered. However, there has not been a corresponding increase
in the number of courts and magistrates who are expected to supervise the students and
increased enrollment in the Law faculities of the respective universities.
5.10 Declaration of Assets and Liabilities
In line with the provisions of Part IV of the Public Officers and Ethics Act, 2003, the Judiciary
administered the biennial Wealth declarations to all employees. It also administered initial
declarations to all employees joining the Judiciary and exit declarations for employees
leaving employment exiting the Judiciary.
5.11 Employee Wellness Programmes
The Judiciary implemented various staff welfare programmes. The medical scheme for
Judges, Judicial officers and staff was renewed with effect from January 18, 2018. A group
Life Insurance for all Judges and Group Personal Accident insurance for all employees is also
in place. Other benefits which have enhanced staff welfare include the staff car loan and
Mortgage scheme which the staff continued to enjoy during the year.
5.12 Transport
During the period under review, the Judiciary had 405 serviceable vehicles assigned to
Court stations, Judges and other units and offices. Fifty vehicles were grounded.
5.13 Judiciary Establishment and Employee Composition
As at 30th June, 2018, the Judiciary had 5,598 employees against an approved establishment
of 9,568. This is means the judiciary is operating at 58.5 per cent of its optimum staffing
levels as indicated in table 5.39
Table. 5.39 Judiciary Establishment.
APPROVED VARIANCE
S.NO DESIGNATION PLS INPOST
POSTS
1 Chief Justice 1 1 0
2 Deputy Chief Justice 1 1 0
3 Judge of Supreme Court 5 5 0
4 Judge of Appeal Court 30 19 11
5 High Court Judge 200 82 118
6 Environment and Land 30 34 -4
7 Industrial Court Judges 15 12 3
8 Chief Registrar 1 1 0
9 Deputy Chief Registrar 1 0 1
Registrar-SC, COA, High Court, SUB.
10 6 6 0
Courts & JSC
11 Deputy Registrar 61 17 44
12 Chief of Staff 0 1 -1
13 Chief Court Administrator 16 1 0 1
14 Chief Magistrate 16 60 45 15
15 Senior Principal Magistrate 15 117 55 62
16 Principal Magistrate 14 100 64 36
17 Senior Resident Magistrate 13 180 151 29
18 Resident Magistrate* 12 230 144 86
19 Assistant Registrars 14 2 2 0
20 Law Clerks 15 16 22 -6
21 Chief Legal Officer 8 0 5 -5
22 Legal Counsel (Head of the Legal Unit) 1 1 0

Legal Counsel (Deputy Head of the
23 1 0 1
Legal Unit)
24 Legal Counsel 3 0 3
25 Legal Researcher 11 88 50 38
26 Assistant Legal Researcher 9 0 1 -1
27 Chief Kadhi 16 1 1 0
28 Senior Principal Kadhi 15 2 1 1
29 Principal Kadhi 14 56 51 5
APPROVED VARIANCE
POSTS
30 Senior Resident Kadhi 13 0
31 Resident Kadhi 12 0
32 Director of Human Resource Mgt 17 1 0 1
Deputy Director of Human Resource
33 16 2 1 1
Mgt
Senior Asst. Director of Human
34 15 2 1 1
Resource Mgt
35 Asst. Director of Human Resource Mgt. 14 16 14 2
36 Deputy Director-Admin 16 1 2 -1
37 Principal Human Resource Mgt. Officer 13 6 4 2
38 Principal Admin. Officer 13 1 2 -1
39 Chief Human Resource Mgt. Officer 12 9 7 2
Senior Human Resource Management
40 13 6 1 5
Officer
41 Human Resource Development Officer 1 10 2 0 2
42 Human Resource Management Officer I 10 8 7 1
43 Human Resource Management Officer II 9 13 7 6
44 Chief Human Resource Mgt. Assistant 12 1 0 1
45 Senior Human Resource Mgt.Assistant 13 3 1 2
46 Human Resource Mgt. Assistant 1 10 5 0 5
47 Human Resource Mgt. Assistant 11 9 10 33 -23
48 Human Resource Management Asst. III 8 38 2 36
Deputy Director of Human Resource
49 16 1 0 1
Development
Senior Asst. Director of Human
50 15 1 0 1
Resource Development
Asst. Director of Human Resource
51 14 1 0 1
Development
Principal Human Resource
52 13 1 0 1
Development Officer
Chief Human Resource Development
53 12 1 0 1
Officer
Senior Human Resource Development
54 13 1 0 1
Officer
Human Resource Development Officer
55 9 13 0 13
11
56 Director Performance Management 17 1 0 1
57 Administrator General 16 0 0 0
58 Head Of Secretarial Services 16 1 0 1
59 Senior Principal Executive Secretary 15 2 0 2
60 Principal Executive Secretary 14 10 6 4
61 Senior Executive Secretary 13 30 17 13
62 Executive Secretary 12 35 14 21
63 Senior Personal Secretary 11 50 42 8
64 Personal Secretary 1 10 60 61 -1
APPROVED VARIANCE
POSTS
65 Personal Secretary 11 9 102 44 58
66 Personal Secretary 111 8 169 63 106
67 Secretarial assistant 11/1& senior 7,8,9 461 247 214
68 Director of Finance 17 1 1 0
69 Chief Finance Officer 16 1 1 0
70 Deputy Chief Finance Officer 15 2 0 2
Asst. Director finance/Senior Principal

71 17 7 11 -4
Finance Officer
72 Principal Finance Officer 13 1 0 1
73 Senior Finance Officer 12 2 1 1
74 Finance Officer 1 11 2 0 2
77 Director Audit & Risk Management 17 1 0 1
Deputy Director Audit & Risk
78 16 1 0 1
Management
Senior Asst. Dir. Audit & Risk
79 15 2 0 2
Management
80 Asst. Director Audit & Risk Management 14 2 0 2
81 Senior Risk & Internal System Auditor 8 0 3 -3
82 Deputy Director- Effeciency Monitoring 8 0 1 -1
83 Deputy Director -External Aid Resources 8 0 0 0
84 Chief Risk & Internal System Auditor 8 0 1 -1
85 Principal Internal Auditor 13 3 0 3
86 Principal Internal Auditor (ICT) 13 1 0 1
87 Chief Internal Auditor 12 5 0 5
88 Chief Internal Auditor (ICT) 12 1 0 1
89 Senior Internal Auditor 11 7 0 7
90 Senior Internal Auditor (ICT) 11 2 0 2
91 Internal Auditor I 10 7 4 3
92 Internal Auditor (ICT) 10 2 0 2
93 Internal Auditor II 9 10 0 10
94 Auditor II 8 0 4 -4
95 Architech I 8 0 1 -1
96 Quantity Surveyor 8 0 0 0
97 Building Technicial I 8 0 1 -1
98 Building Technicial II 8 0 2 -2
99 Director of Planning 17 1 0 1
100 Chief Economist/Chief Statistician 16 1 0 1
Deputy Chief Economist/Deputy Chief
101 15 1 1 0
Statistician
APPROVED VARIANCE
POSTS
Principal Economist/Principal
102 17 1 0 1
Statistician
103 Senior Economist 1/Senior Statistician 1 13 1 1 0
Senior Economist 11/Senior Statistician
104 12 1 1 0
11
105 Economist 1/Statistician 1 11 2 0 2
106 Economist 11/Statistician 11 10 3 0 3
107 Chief Accounts Controller 17 0 1 -1
Senior Principal Accounts Controller/
108 16 1 1 0
Deputy Director Accounts
109 Principal Accounts Controller 15 1 0 1
110 Accounts Controller 17 1 0 1
111 Principal Accountant 13 5 0 5
112 Chief Accountant 12 6 7 -1
113 Assistant Accountant I & II 11 10 17 -7
114 Senior Accounts Assistant 10 67 12 55
115 Senior Accountant 11 20 13 7
116 Accountant 1 10 40 63 -23
117 Accountant 11 9 69 25 44
118 Accounts Assistant 1 9 60 37 23
119 Accounts Assistant 11 8 81 14 67
120 Director of I.C Technology 17 1 0 1
121 Deputy Director of I.C Technology 16 1 0 1
122 Assistant Director of I.C Technology 15 3 2 1
123 Senior Principal .I.C Technology Officer 17 1 0 1
124 Principal .I.C Technology Officer 13 3 3 0
125 Chief .I.C Technology Officer 12 10 0 10
126 Senior I.C. Technology Officer 11 20 13 7
127 I.C Technology Officer l 10 68 18 50
128 I.C Technology Officer ll 9 72 27 45
129 I.C Technology Officer lll 8 112 17 95
130 Computer Operations Assistant II 8 0 2 -2
131 Director of Public Communication 17 1 0 1
Deputy Director of Public
132 16 1 1 0
Communication
Senior Asst. Director of Public
133 15 2 0 2
Communication
Senior Principal/Assistant Dir. Public
134 14 1 1 0
Communication Officer
135 Principal Public Communication Officer 13 1 1 0
136 Chief Public Communication Officer 12 1 1 0
137 Senior Public Communication Officer 11 1 0 1
138 Public Communication Officer 1 10 3 3 0
139 Public Communication Officer 11 9 3 0 3
140 Photo Journalist 8 0 1 -1
APPROVED VARIANCE
POSTS
141 Chief Film Officer 8 0 0 0
142 Assistant Director Protocol 14 1 0 1
143 Principal Protocol Officer 13 2 0 2
144 Chief Protocol Officer 12 2 0 2
145 Senior Protocol Officer 11 2 0 2
146 Protocol Officer I 10 4 0 4
147 Protocol Officer II 9 6 0 6
148 Directory of Library Services 17 1 0 1
Deputy Directory of Library Services,
149 16 1 0 1
Archives & Documentation
150 Senior Asst. Director of Library Services 15 1 0 1
151 Asst. Directory of Library Services 17 1 0 1
152 Principal Librarian 13 2 1 1
Chief Librarian/Principal Library
153 12 5 5 0
Assisstant
154 Senior Librarian 11 10 10 0
155 Librarian I/11 10,9 40 6 34
156 Senior Principal Library Assisstant 12 1 1 0
157 Chief Library Assistant 10 20 12 8
158 Senior Library Assistant 10 10 0 10
159 Library Assistant 1/II 8,9 120 1 119
160 Senior Principal Executive Officer 15 1 0 1
161 Principal Executive Officer 14 3 3 0
162 Chief Executive Officer 13 10 4 6
163 Senior Executive Officer 12 30 8 22
164 Executive Officer 1 11 50 21 29
165 Executive Officer 11 10 100 13 87
166 Director of Supply chain Management 17 1 1 0
167 Senior Principal Procurement Officer 14 1 0 1
168 Principal Procurement Officer 13 2 0 2
169 Chief Procurement Officer 12 2 2 0
170 Senior Procurement Officer 11 5 1 4
171 Procurement Officer 1 10 10 9 1
172 Procurement Officer 11 9 20 16 4
173 Supplies Officer I 8 0 6 -6
174 Principal Archivist 14 1 0 1
175 Chief Archivist 13 1 0 1
176 Senior Archivist 12 2 0 2
177 Archivist 1 11 8 3 5
178 Archivist 11 10 16 1 15
179 Archivist 111 9 32 25 7
180 Senior Archives Assistant 1 12 1 0 1
APPROVED VARIANCE
POSTS
181 Senior Archives Assistant 11 11 1 0 1
182 Senior Archives Assistant III 10 0 12 -12
183 Archives Asst. I 9 30 14 16
184 Archives Assistant III/II 7,8 107 51 56
185 Principal Telephone Supervisor 13 1 0 1
186 Chief Telephone Supervisor 12 1 1 0
187 Senior Telephone Supervisor 11 1 1 0
188 Telephone Supervisor 1 10 1 1 0
189 Telephone Supervisor 11 9 1 5 -4
190 Senior Telephone Operator 8 20 12 8
191 Telephone Operator 1 7 83 7 76
192 Telephone Operator II 6 35 6 29
193 Principal Executive Assistant 12 5 0 5
194 Chief Executive Assistant 11 10 6 4
195 Senior Executive Assistant 10 106 69 37
196 Executive Assistant 9 304 206 98
197 Chief Procurement Assistant 11 1 0 1
198 SeniorProcurement Assistant 10 6 0 6
199 Procurement Assistant 9 10 2 8
200 Principal Driver 9 5 4 1
201 Senior Driver 1 8 20 10 10
202 Driver 111/11/1/Senior Driver II 4,5,6,7 179 145 34
203 Security Guard 2,3,4 296 102 194
204 Assistant Security Officer 8 1 0 1
205 Security Warden (Ushers) 7 24 1 23
206 Senior Security Guard 8 0 25 -25
207 Security Officer II 8 0 13 -13
208 Senior Court Bailiff 10 36 9 27
209 Court Bailiff 9 44 45 -1
210 Senior Chargehand 9 1 0 1
211 Superintendent of Works 8 0 2 -2
212 Chargehand (Electrical) 8 1 0 1
213 Plumber Grade 111 6 2 0 2
214 Electrical Grade 5 1 0 1
215 Senior Storekeeper 8 20 26 -6
216 Storekeeper 1 7 30 52 -22
217 Storekeeper 11 6 60 5 55
218 Refrigeration(Mechanic 11/111 5,6 1 0 1
219 Motor -Vehicle Mechanic 5,6 2 0 2
220 Machine Operator 7 2 0 2
221 Process Server 11/1/Senior 6,7,8 220 40 180
APPROVED VARIANCE
POSTS
222 Artisan I/II/III 4,5,6 1 3 -2
223 Receptionist 5 12 0 12
Chairman of the Co-Operative Tribunal.
224 1 0 1
of the PPDT
225 Sec. of the PPDT 1 0 1
226 Programme Officer 11 1 4 -3
227 Programme Officer 1 9 4 0 4
228 Asst. Director, Performance Mgt 14 8 7 1
229 Deputy Director Performance Mgt 16 1 1 0
230 Princ. Planning & Budgeting officer 13 1 0 1
231 Princ. Monitoring & Evaluation officer 13 1 1 0
232 Legal Counsel (Deputy Chief of Staff) 16 1 0 1
233 Inspectorate Officer 1 0 1
234 Deputy Director Budgeting/Planning 16 0 0 0
235 Clerical/Higher/Senior Clerical officer 6,7,8 3589 2301 1288
Subordinate staff/Senior Subordinate,
2,3,4,
236 supervisor/Cleaning Supervisor I & II/ 866 594 272
5,6,7
Messenger I

GRAND TOTAL 9,568 5,598 3,970
5.14 Employee composition
During the reporting period, the Judiciary had 5,598 employees, out of 155 Judges (2.8%).
and 513 were Magistrates and Kadhis (9.2%). There were 4,930 or 88.1 per cent judicial staff
as reflected in Table 5.33. In terms of gender composition, 2,702 - 49.2 per cent - were
female, while 2,896 - 51.7 per cent were male. Some 91 employees - 1.6 per cent - were
Persons living With Disabilities (PWDs). The distribution of members of the Judiciary by
gender and designation is as shown in Table 5.33.
Table. 5.33 Employee composition by gender
CADRE MALE FEMALE

No. Percent No. Percent
Judges 91 58.7% 64 41.3%
Magistrates and Kadhis 298 58.2% 215 41.8%
Judicial staff 2,507 50.8% 2,423 49.2%

Total 2,896 51.7% 2,702 48.3%
Figure 5.4 Employee composition
Table 5.34: Employees with disability by cadre
DESIGNATION NO. PERCENTAGE

Accountant 6 6.6 %
Archivists 4 4.4 %
Magistrates/Kadhi 7 7.7 %
Clerical Officers 42 46.2 %
Support Staff 11 12.1 %
Executive Officers 8 8.8 %
Judges 2 2.2 %
Human Resource Officer 2 2.2 %
Secretary 3 3.3 %
Process Server 1 1.1 %
Telephone 3 3.3 %
Stores 2 2.2%
Total 91 100%
Table 5.35: Judges FY2017/18
DESIGNATION NO. PERCENTAGE

Accountant 6 6.6 %
Archivists 4 4.4 %
Magistrates/Kadhi 7 7.7 %
Clerical Officers 42 46.2 %
Support Staff 11 12.1 %
Executive Officers 8 8.8 %
Judges 2 2.2 %
Human Resource Officer 2 2.2 %
Secretary 3 3.3 %
Process Server 1 1.1 %
Telephone 3 3.3 %
Stores 2 2.2%
Total 91 100%
Table 5.36: Judges FY2017/18
AGE BRACKET
DESIGNATION TOTAL
40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69
Chief Justice 1 1
Deputy Chief Justice 1 1

High Court, ELRC and
4 23 51 33 11 7 129
ELC Judge
Judge of Appeal 1 1 10 3 4 19
Supreme Court Judge 2 1 1 1 5
Chief Registrar 1 1
Total 4 24 55 44 16 13 156
Table 5.36: Judicial staff FY 2017/18
DIRECTORATE DESIGNATION STAFF BY GE BRACKET
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
COMMUNICATION Asst. Director - Public Affairs &

1 1
OFFICERS Communication
Chief Public Comm. Officer 1 1
Deputy Director - PublicAffairs &

1 1
Communication
Director- Public Affairs &

1 1
Communication
Photojournalist 1 1
Principal Public Comm. Officer 1 1
Public Communications Officer 1 2 1 3
DBS Architect 1 1
Artisan III 1 1 1 3
Building Technicial II 1 1 2
State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice Annual Report, 2017 - 2018
217
218
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Building Technician 1 1 1
Chief Architect 1 1
Senior Architect 1 1
Superintendent of Works 1 1 2
FINANCE ACCOUNTANT 1 1 18 27 7 3 3 3 1 63
Accountant 2 4 7 4 5 5 25
Accounts Assistant 1 11 12 8 3 2 1 37
Accounts Assistant 2 5 5 1 1 2 14
Assistant Accountant 1 7 2 3 3 1 17
Auditor II 3 1 4
Chief Accountant 4 2 1 7
Chief Accounts Controller 1 1
Chief Risk & Internal Systems

1 1
Auditor
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Deputy Chief Economist 1 1
Deputy Director of Accounts 1 1
Director Finance 1 1
Finance Officer 3 1 1 2
Finance Officer 2 1 1
Internal Auditor 1 1 2 1 4
Principal Risk & Internal Systems

1 1 2
Auditor
Regional Assistant Director -

1 2 5 3 11
Finance
Regional Principal Accountant 3 2 5
Senior Accountant 1 5 4 1 1 1 13
Senior Accounts Assistant 2 4 1 4 2 13
Senior Economist/Statician 2 1 1 2
219
220
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Senior Finance Officer 1 1
Senior Risk & Internal Systems

3 3
Auditor
HUMAN RESOURCE &

Archives Assistant 1 3 2 3 4 1 1 14
ADMINISTRATION
Archives Assistant 2 13 13 16 5 47
Archives Assistant 3 2 2 4
Archivist 1 1 1 1 3
Archivist 2 1 1
Archivist 3 10 10 4 1 25
Chief Executive Assistant 1 4 1 6
Chief Executive Officer 2 1 1 4
Chief Finance Officer 1 1
Chief HRM Officer 2 1 3 1 7
Chief Librarian/ Principal Lib. Asst 1 2 2 5
Chief Library Assistant 1 7 3 1 12
Chief of Staff 1 1 2
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Chief Telephone Supervisor 1 1
Cleaning Supervisor 1 1 2 4 2 1 10
Cleaning Supervisor 2 5 9 16 12 10 23 4 79
Clerical Officer 2 159 661 462 93 92 41 30 11 1549
Court Bailiff 2 6 5 6 11 9 6 45
Deputy Director - Administration 1 1 2
Deputy Director-HRM 1 1
Driver 1 2 1 2 5 1 11
Driver 2 2 9 21 23 10 3 3 71
Driver 3 3 7 21 23 5 4 63
Executive Assistant 29 40 31 47 56 3 206
Executive Officer 1 3 4 2 1 1 7 3 21
Executive Officer 2 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 13
Executive Secretary 10 2 1 1 14
Higher Clerical Officer 13 100 98 81 36 14 11 6 359
HRM Assistant 3 1 1 2
221
222
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
HRM Assistant II 16 11 4 2 33
HRM Officer 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 7
HRM Officer 2 1 2 2 1 1 7
Librarian 3 1 1 1 6
Library Assistant I 1 1
Messenger Grade 1 1 1 2 4
Personal Secretary 1 1 2 2 6 16 11 8 13 2 61
Personal Secretary 2 1 4 23 12 1 2 1 44
Personal Secretary 3 7 17 19 18 2 63
Principal Administration Officer 1 1 2
Principal Driver 1 3 4
Principal Executive Officer 2 1 3
Principal Executive Secretary 1 1 3 1 6

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Principal HRM Officer 1 1
Principal Librarian 1 1
Principal Library Assistant 1 2 3
Process Server 1 1 3 1 6 1 12
Process Server 2 1 9 5 6 4 1 1 1 28
Regional Assistant Director-HRM 6 5 3 14
Regional Principal HR &Adm

1 2 1 4
Officer
Secretarial Assistant 1 6 13 24 14 6 9 72
Secretarial Assistant 2 20 32 4 11 5 4 8 84
Secretary / CEO - Tribunal 1 1
Security Guard 1 1 2 6 4 1 1 1 16
Security Guard 2 3 8 10 11 6 4 2 44
Security Guard 3 1 10 12 10 6 3 42
223
224
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Security Officer 2 3 6 3 1 13
Security Warden 1 1
Senior Archives Assistant 2 6 1 3 12
Senior Archivist 1 1
Senior Assistant Director HR &

1 1
Admin
Senior Clerical Officer 57 107 103 48 45 10 370
Senior Court Bailiff 1 3 1 3 1 9
Senior Driver 1 2 2 1 4 10
Senior Executive Assistant 1 1 5 14 29 19 69
Senior Executive Officer 1 2 5 8
Senior Executive Secretary 5 5 4 3 17
Senior HRM Assistant 1 1
Senior HRM Officer 1 1

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Senior Librarian 2 5 2 1 10
Senior Personal Secretary 11 11 6 13 1 42
Senior Principal Library Assistant 1 1
Senior Process Server 5 4 7 8 10 5 39
Senior Secretarial Assistant 14 29 19 7 21 1 91
Senior Security Guard 7 8 5 2 2 1 25
Senior Support Staff 6 24 32 40 24 18 9 153
Senior Subordinate 1 2 2 5
Senior Telephone Operator 1 4 3 3 1 12
Senior Telephone Supervisor 2 2

Support Staff 1 8 21 25 16 8 1 79
Support Staff 2 1 6 19 14 7 5 4 1 4 61
Support Staff Supervisor 9 41 40 37 23 18 17 185
Telephone Operator 1 3 2 2 7
225
226
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Telephone Operator 2 1 2 2 1 6
Telephone Supervisor 1 1 1
Telephone Supervisor 2 4 1 5
ICT OFFICERS Assistant Director – ICT 1 1 2
Computer Operations Assistant 2 2 2
ICT Officer 1 4 10 2 2 18
ICT Officer 2 7 6 12 2 27
ICT Officer 3 6 11 17
Principal ICT Officer 3 3
Senior ICT Officer 2 10 1 13
MAGISTRATES & OTHER
Assistant Legal Researcher 1 1
OFFICERS
Assistant Registrar 1 1 2
Chief Kadhi 1 1
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Chief Legal Officer 2 1 3
Chief Magistrate 4 18 9 13 1 45
Deputy Chief Kadhi 1 1
Deputy Registrar 1 1 2
Kadhi 1 3 6 6 2 2 19
Kadhi 2 5 7 9 1 22
Law Clerks 8 13 1 22
Legal Counsel 1 1
Legal Researcher 9 25 16 50
Principal Kadhi 1 4 4 9
Principal Magistrate 2 30 21 7 4 64
Registrar 1 5 6
Resident Magistrate/Deputy
5 42 73 20 4 144
Registrar
Senior Legal Officer 1 1
Senior Principal Kadhi 1 1
Senior Principal Magistrate 22 23 6 3 1 55
Senior Resident Magistrate 10 89 34 13 4 1 151
227
228
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
PERFORMANCE Assistant Director - Performance

2 2 1 1 1 7
MANAGEMENT Management
Deputy Director - Performance

1 1
Management
Deputy Director-Efficiency
1 1
Monitoring
Principal Monitoring & Evaluation

1 1
Officer
Programme Officer 2 2 4
PROCUREMENT Chief Procurement Officer 2 2
Director-Supplies Chain
1 1
Management Services
Procurement Assistant 2 2
Procurement Officer 1 6 1 1 1 9
Procurement Officer 2 2 10 1 1 2 16
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 TOTAL
Senior Procurement Officer 1 1
Senior Store Keeper 2 5 14 3 2 26
Store Keeper 1 11 26 8 6 1 52
Store Keeper 2 3 1 1 5
Supplies Officer 1 2 2 2 6
TOTAL 5,443
161 823 1120 1020 923 550 384 386 76
229
Table 15.34: Education level by Gender FY 2017 / 18
LEVEL OF EDUCATION MALE FEMALE TOTAL

Doctorate Degree (PhD) 6 2 8
Master’s Degree 110 99 209
Bachelor’s Degree 549 564 1,113
Post Graduate Diploma 105 90 195
Higher Diploma 17 57 74
Certificate Courses 131 103 234
Diploma 424 404 828
High School Certificate 1,417 1,327 2,744
Primary School 118 75 193
Total 2,877 2,721 5,598
Conclusion
The Judiciary will continue to work closely with other State agencies and other key
stakeholders to address emerging human resource issues in an effort to meet the expectations
of Kenyans. In order to improve the execution of its mandate and enhance productivity, the
Judiciary will focus on the following key interventions:
1. Engage Parliament, the National Treasury and Salaries and Remuneration Commission
to address the human resource and compensation challenges facing the Judiciary;
2. Implement recommendations of organizational review exercise to ensure the
administrative function is aligned to the judicial function to expeditiously deliver
justice and that the courts and administrative offices are optimally staffed for effective
service delivery;
3. Conclude the review of the Judiciary Human Resource Management policies and
procedures and guidelines and align them to the Constitution and other legislative
frameworks;
4. Conclude review of the Performance Appraisal System tool and introduce a rewards
and sanction framework.
Table 5. 45. Details of furniture projects.
STATUS REPORT OF FURNITURE PROJECTS FUNDED BY WORLD BANK (THROUGH JPIP) AS AT 30TH JUNE 2018
ORIGINAL
COURT CONTRACTOR’S CONTRACT SUM COMPLETION CONTRACT
PROJECT START DATE % COMPLETE
STATION NAME (KSH) DATE PERIOD STATUS REPORT
(WKS)

FY FY
2016 2017-
-2017 2018
FURNITURE CONTRACTS
Muhoroni Law Courts 6,912,678.00

1 Tamu 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
(Tamu)
2 Oyugis Law Courts Oyugis 10,032,713.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
3 Nyamira Law Courts Nyamira 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going

10,041,068.00
4 Vihiga Law Courts Vihiga 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
10,096,853.00
5 Nyando Law Courts Nyando 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
Timsales Ltd 10,020,678.00
6 Kigumo Law Courts Kigumo 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
7,962,567.00
7 Molo Law Courts Molo 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
9,514,658.00
8 Chuka Law Courts Chuka 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
9,713,206.00
9 Engineer Law Courts Engineer 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
6,907,822.00
10 Makindu Law Courts Makindu 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
9,766,190.00
11 Kibera Law Courts Kibera 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication On-Going
14,404,530.00
231
Chapter 6
TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
WITHIN THE JUDICIARY:
THE JUDICIARY TRAINING INSTITUTE
6.0 Introduction: Establishment and Mandate of JTI
T
he Judiciary Training Institute (JTI) was established in 2008 to provide training
for Judges and magistrates. Since then, the institute has grown into a formidable
institution in the Judiciary, particularly following the promulgation of the 2010
Constitution. The JTI exercises its mandate for and on behalf of the Judicial Service
Commission (JSC). Article 172 (1) (d) of the Constitution provides that one of the functions
of the JSC is to prepare and implement programmes for continous education and training of
Judges and judicial officers. Section 47 (2) (e) of the Judicial Service Act vests power upon the
Commission to make Regulations for orientation and training of judicial officers and staff.
In accord with the JSC constitutional obligation, JTI exercises its mandate as advised and
directed by the Commission. This mandate includes:
a) Providing and coordinating provision of continuous judicial education to Judges

and judicial officers;
b) Coordinating the preparation and implementation of the Judiciary training

master calendar;
c) Coordinating the induction and training of judiciary staff in consultation with

the Directorate of Human Resource, registrars;
d) Conducting regional training programs;
e) Conducting Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) to determine the impact of the

Institute’s training programs;
f) Conducting research and developing draft policy on various aspects of

administration of justice as advised and required by the Commission;
g) Sensitizing Judges, judicial officers and judiciary staff on judiciary policies and
circulars;
h) Coordinating the development and publication of bench books and other

publications relevant to enhancing skills and competence of Judges and judicial
officers; and
i) Spearheading on behalf of the Judiciary, constructive engagement and feedback

with stakeholders and other arms of government.
Director JTI Justice Prof. Otieno Odek receiving a certificate of very good performance from
The Hon. Chief Justice at the Performance Management awards ceremony.
6.1 Activities Held Towards Implementation of the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation

(SJT) Blueprint
During the financial year under review, the following programs and activities were
undertaken towards supporting the implementation of SJT in the Judiciary.
Table 6.1: training Programmes carried out.
SJT Pillar Programme under SJT Activities carried out

Access to Justice Citizen centric services and • 400 judiciary employees including clerical
and Clearing customer care officers, secretaries, court interpreters, archivists
Case Backlog Making justice more pro poor and internal auditors underwent training on
customer care, communication and integrity
Implementation of Bail and • 40 newly recruited magistrates were inducted
Bond Policy/Sentencing on principles of sentencing, the bail and bond
guidelines policy and its application
Active Case Management • 40 newly recruited magistrates were inducted
[ACM] on ACM and handling pretrial conference
• 450 magistrates were trained on practical
aspects of case management in civil matters
including the overriding objective of Order 11
CPC during June 2018 Colloquium.
Mainstreaming of Alternative • The Task Force visited various counties in the
Justice Systems (AJS) country to collect views. Counties visited include
Isiolo, Nyeri, Lodwar, Kericho, Eldoret, Kisumu,
Mombasa, Garissa, Meru, Marsabit.
Improving the work methods • Coordinated development of a comprehensive
of judicial officers in the Training Needs Assessment tool for the judiciary.
judiciary
Use of technology to enhance • Developed a training database that can be
work methods and individual accessed for verification of specific data/
accountability information regarding training
• Trained 70 judges and 90 magistrates on
transcription
Integrity, Institutionalize transparency, • 40 newly recruited magistrates trained on
Fight Against accountability and integrity judicial independence, accountability and the
Corruption and Official Secrets Act.
Reorganization Institutionalize the Official • 400 employees including clerical officers,
of the Judiciary Secrets Act secretaries, court interpreters, archivists and
Complaints internal auditors trained on integrity and
Handling professionalism.
Mechanisms • 70 legal researchers inducted on conduct, ethics
and integrity for Legal Researchers
6.2 The Judiciary Training Master Calendar 2017/2018.
The Judiciary Master Calendar aids in coordinating and synchronizing all training activities
within the Judiciary and to ensure that as far as possible, training programs do not interfere
with the court diary and the core mandate of the Judiciary which is adjudication of
disputes. To ensure that this is achieved, all units within the Judiciary indicate in advance
their projected training programs in a financial year hence ensuring the institution has a
panoramic view of all training activities and there is minimal interruption of court business.
The 2017 training master calendar was developed in a consultative process, involving
internal and external stakeholders. The same was approved by the JSC for implementation
during the period under review.
One of the major challenges faced during the implementation of the 2017 Master Calendar
was the austerity measures introduced on Government institutions vide Treasury Circular
No.11/2017. The austerity measures and subsequent slash in budgetary allocation necessitated
a revision of the calendar. The affected programmes by the budget reduction were training
workshops for the various courts, staff trainings at the Kenya School of Government, as well
as holding of the judiciary sports day.
A summary of the activities that were carried out in the reporting period are provided in the
table:
Table 6.2: Summary of activities undertaken by JTI.
Training/Activity Explanation No. Trained
Election Dispute • Debrief for High Court Judges who handled 31
Resolution (EDR) appeals from the Political Parties Dispute
Related Trainings Tribunal before the August 2017 elections
• Training for the Special Benches ( Judges and 70 Judges,
Magistrates) gazetted to hear petitions after 95 Magistrates and 40
the 2017 August elections Deputy Registrars
7
• EDR training and pre-petition meeting for
Supreme Court
21
• EDR training for Court of Appeal Judges
58
• EDR training for newly appointed legal
researchers
40
• EDR training for Deputy Registrars
Training/Activity Explanation No. Trained
Induction for judicial • Newly recruited Magistrates 40
officers and staff • Newly recruited staff including clerical 400
officers, secretaries, court interpreters,
archivists, internal auditors
• Legal Researchers 58
Specialized trainings/ • Supreme Court 7

working retreats • Court of Appeal 21
• ELRC 22
• ELC 34
• High Court 59
Colloquiums Annual Judges Colloquium 155

Annual Magistrates and Kadhis Colloquium 230
session 1
230
Annual Magistrates and Kadhis Colloquium
session 2
Continuing Judicial CJE 1 for magistrates 50

Education (CJE) for CJE 2 for magistrates 40
Magistrates CJE 3 for magistrates 40
JTI Staff training and Training on change management, report writing, 32

team building retreat rapporturing and minute taking skills undertaken
in August 2018 in Mombasa.
Judiciary Sports Day Retreat to debrief on 2016/2017 annual sports 20

Technical Committee day and strategize on way forward, undertaken
in May 2018.
The Chief Justice Hon. DK Maraga, JSC Commissioner Warsame and Director JTI Prof Otieno-Odek during the
swearing in of newly appointed magistrates, December 2018.
Training on EDR at the Judiciary Training Institute

6.2.1 The 2017/2018 Annual Judges Colloquium
The highlight of the Judiciary training master calendar is the colloquiums. The annual event
provides a platform for introspection and sharing of knowledge and experiences.
The theme of the 2017 Annual Judges Colloquium was Introspection and Sharing Experiences:
Sustaining Judicial Transformation in a Digital Environment and Electioneering Period. The
colloquium was held in Mombasa from 3-7 July 2017. The topics focused on the SJT blue print
and particularly on the digital strategy of the judiciary. There were topics on Progress of SJT
Implementation, eFiling and Electronic Case Management, Election Technology Law and Digital
Evidence. There were topics that focused on emerging jurisprudence such as Reproductive
Health Rights, Thoughts on Transgender and Intersex Persons and the ‘3rd Gender’, Practice in
Extradition and Human Trafficking. In readiness for the electioneering period, topics like
Verification, Accuracy and Transparency, Scrutiny and Recount, Legislative Amendments in
EDR, Practical Forms and Tools (demonstration), Benfords Law as well as Gender Based Violence;
Ground for Nullification of Elections? were included so as to refresh the Judges memories.
The presentation touching on the Environment and Land Court was titled The Missing Link:
Jurisdictional Mandate of the Environment Court and that on the Employment and Labour
Court was titled Emerging Jurisprudence on Economic Disputes.
The introspection and reflection session was a period of feedback from the Bar, the
Commission on Administrative Justice as well as other key stakeholders. Finally, the Judges
welfare sessions focused on Psycho Socio Support in Work Related Stress as well as Change
Management and Culture Change.
Annual Judges Colloquium July 2017
6.2.2 Annual Magistrates and Kadhis Colloquium
The third Magistrates and Kadhis Colloquium was held in two sessions running between
18-20 June 2018 and 27-29 June 2018 at the Great Rift Valley Lodge Naivasha. The theme
of the colloquium was Access to Justice; a Judiciary Service Agenda, also in line with the SJT
blueprint.
The topics on family law related to marriage, divorce and succession matters, and interrogated
the new family law legislation. On the subject of commercial law, the discussion was
on Corporate and Partnership Structures under the Companies Act 2015. In civil litigation
the discussions were on Case Management and Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Act as well as
Exercising Diligence in Granting Temporary Injunctions in Civil Matters. On emerging issues,
the discussion centered on Energy Law and on land law was the topic on the End of the Cujus
Maxim. Finally the topics touching on Kadhis court related to Sources of Law and Evidentiary
Issues in Kadhis Courts, Jurisdictional Issues Relating to Personal Status, and in particular Children
Matters and finally on The Overlapping Jurisdiction of Kadhis Courts in Children Matters. A
plenary discussion provided a forum for the Magistrates and Kadhis to share experiences on
different issues. Further, the participants also held a discussion on Essentials of Management
and Leadership.
The Hon Chief Justice and Director JTI, with Magistrates and Kadhis at the Annual Magistrates and Kadhis
Colloquium, 2018.
6.3 Regional Programs.
Kenya has maintained a comparative advantage in continuous judicial education

training and a strong regional tradition in adjudication of disputes. Deliberate steps
have been taken to leverage Kenya’s comparative advantage to promote regional
cooperation, networking and collaboration in judicial education and training.
Through regional collaborative efforts, the Judiciary has created opportunities for
conceptual and methodological competency, jurisprudential knowledge synthesis
and exchange of judicial personnel as participants in regional training programs.
The ensuing benefits promotes networking and enriches comparative aspects
of jurisprudential development in the region. Some of the regional initiatives
undertaken in the 2017 financial are highlighted in the following subsections
6.3.1 The Africa Judicial Education Network on Environmental Law: AJENEL
The idea of a network whose focus is continuing training in environmental law for
Judges and magistrates, was conceptualized through a regional symposium held
in Johannesburg South Africa in January 2017 bringing together over 45 African
countries. The Institute represented Kenya at the symposium and was nominated as
a member of the working group. The key achievements of the working group during
the 2017 financial year was the negotiation of draft rules and regulations for the
network as well as the preparation of a regional training curriculum and manual on
environmental law. It was envisaged that once adopted, the curriculum and manual
would be tailored by each country to suit their specific needs and systems.
6.3.2 HIV/TB Sub Committee on Judicial Education
This is an initiative of the Africa Regional Judges Forum (ARJF), on HIV/TB

and Human Rights issues with the support of UNDP. The Forum began as an
implementation response to the findings and recommendations of the 2012 report
of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law and has been held since 2014. The
Steering Committee oversees the activities of the Forum. The Judges Forum held
a round table in Johannesburg South Africa in January 2018, which was attended
by Judges, magistrates and judiciary training institutions from various African
countries, including Kenya. The main objective was to examine ways of integrating
HIV/TB and human rights topics into judicial training. The roundtable welcomed
the idea of sustainable capacity building for Judges and magistrates in a subject little
thought about during training.
In the end, a Judicial Education subcommittee was established to implement this

agenda. It was further resolved that a regional curriculum on HIV/TB and human
rights would be developed and adopted by countries according to their circumstances.
Kenya currently holds the Chairmanship of the subcommittee and also serves as the
secretariat of the subcommittee through JTI.
6.3.3 East African Judicial Education Committee (EAJEC)
The East African Judicial Education Committee (EAJEC) began its operations in
1996 under the auspices of the secretariat of the permanent Tripartite Commission
for Cooperation of the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Kenya and the United
Republic of Tanzania. It is a forum that brings together the Directors of judicial
training institutes of the East African Community partner states. The main goal of
EAJEC is to agree on common standards and principles for judicial education for
judicial officers at both national and regional levels. The EAJEC also coordinates and
organizes trainings for Judges and magistrates at a regional level on areas of concern
to the Community.
During the FY 2017/18 , JTI played a critical role in the negotiation and finalization
of the Memorandum of Understanding between the EAJEC Countries. The Institute
also provided a resource person during the EAJEC training sessions in Nairobi and
South Sudan. Kenya will be hosting the regional EAJEC meeting in the FY 2018/19.
6.3.4 Benchmarking visits
On the 8th of March 2018 the Judiciary played host to a delegation of Somali criminal
justice practitioners. The purpose of the visit was to benchmark on the establishment,
mandate and organization of JTI as well as the running of trainings for Judges and
magistrates. The team also took part in a moot session on terrorism which was held
at the Supreme Court. They also called on the Attorney General and visited the Kenya
School of Law. Other notable guests who visited or held benchmarking discussions
during the FY included the Chief Justice of Gambia and the Judges of the Supreme
Court of Zambia.
Somali Criminal Justice Practitioners Benchmarking Visit.
6.4 Research and Policy Programs Undertaken
The Judiciary through the Institute has over the last two years running into the FY under
consideration undertaken policy initiative to strengthen the Directorate of Policy and
Research. A guideline on policy research was developed and is operational. A positive aspect
of the guideline is that the framework, steps and methodology for judicial policy research
and public participation is well laid out. This has enabled policy research to be focused and
issue specific. The guidelines clearly distinguish between academic research and institutional
policy research methodology. During the period under review, the following research and
policy programs were undertaken:
6.4.1 Judiciary Training and Development Policy
During the reporting period, several sessions including stakeholder review and validation
sessions were held to review the Training and Development Policy for the Judiciary. The
draft was presented to the Commission for approval.
6.4.2 Justice Needs and Satisfaction Survey
The Justice needs and satisfaction survey project aimed at establishing the actual justice
expectations of the Kenyan citizens and to assess the impact of judiciary transformation
on consumers of court services. The survey was carried out by The Hague Institute for the
Internationalization of law with the institution offering secretarial support. The report was
launched in March 2018 in a ceremony presided over by the Hon. Lady Justice Philomena
Mwilu, the Deputy Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya. The study was disseminated to
inform policy and decision making.
6.4.3 Training Needs Assessment
The need for Training Needs Assesment (TNA) is founded on the realization that the training
in the Judiciary should be demand driven and that curriculums must respond to the
identified needs, competence and skills gap in the judiciary. The objective of the TNA was
to identify skills and competence gaps as well as training needs within the institution. In
order to ensure that a comprehensive training needs assessment was prepared, an expert
was brought on board. As at the end of the reporting period, the TNA process was ongoing
and the expert had prepared a tool for data collection.
6.4.4 Development of the Judicial Code of Conduct.
The Public officers Ethics Act, 2016 Sections 5 and 6 provides for the establishment of a
specific code of conduct and ethics for officers to achieve this requirement, a consultant was
brought on board to assist the Institute develop and draft the judicial code of conduct and
ethics. During the period under review the draft document was subjected to stakeholders
to get their views and thereafter a validation exercise was done. The document awaits final
approval by the Commission.
6.4.5 Alternative Justice System (AJS)
During the reporting period, the taskforce on Alternative Justice System held committee
meetings and consultative engagements in the various regions in the country nameley
Isiolo, Nyeri, Lodwar, Kericho, Eldoret, Kisumu, Mombasa, Garissa, Meru and Marsabit.
The final output of the committee will be a framework for mainstreaming of AJS into the
Justice system.
6.4.6 Study on Clearing Case Back Log
In line with Pillar 2 of the SJT framework, an expert was engaged to carry out interviews
within selected stations throughout the country to gather information on reduction of
existing case backlog in the Judiciary. A stakeholders’ engagement was held during the FY
2017/18 and the consultant submitted a draft report. A stakeholder validation engagement
is scheduled for the financial year 2018/19.
6.4.7 Development of Kadhis Handbook and Rules of Practice for Kadhis Courts
The Kadhis handbook and rules of practice are meant to facilitate Kadhis courts by
streamlining their procedures and processes to ensure seamless and efficient dispensation
of Justice under the Kadhis court. The Draft of the handbook and the rules of practice were
developed and an expert has since been engaged to help finalize these Rules and come up
with the final document.
6.4.8 Development of Court Administrators Handbook
The Court Administrators’ handbook is a document envisaged to be a quick reference

document for court administrators to help them deliver their mandate as expected in line
with Judiciary’s mission and vision. A draft handbook was prepared during the reporting
period and is due for stakeholder validation scheduled for the next financial year.
6.4.9 Study on Performance Evaluation Tools for Judicial Officers
Information gathered from the daily court return template (DCRT) is crucial in the
performance evaluation of Judges and Judicial officers. However, this information is
currently not sufficient as it only captures the quantitative aspect of the performance.
In order to address this shortcoming, work is ongoing to develop a tool to capture qualitative
aspects.
6.4.10 Development of a Bench book on Environmental Law
The development of the Bench book on Envriomental Law aims at providing members of
the ELC Bench and other officials who preside over environment and land matters with
the tools for the resolution of disputes that come before them. The book is expected to
provide a summary of the legal framework, processes and procedures applicable in the
Environment and Land cases and to distill and present the prevailing jurisprudence on
selected environment and land disputes as well as provide a quick reference of key resources
and authorities for selected environment and land cases. A consultant was engaged and has
developed an outline of the bench book which has been validated by stakeholders. A draft
bench book will be ready during the financial year 2018/19.
6.5 Training Innovations
In order to systematize the training framework and programs and integrate service
innovation in delivery of judicial education programs, an electronic database on foreign
travels for Judges and judicial officers taken from the year 2013 onwards was introduced.
The database also captures trainings attended by individual Judges and judicial officers also
from 2013 onwards and shows the list of facilitators, topics facilitated and the programmes
for all trainings undertaken in every financial year. An electronic compendium of all papers
presented at the continuous judicial education training sessions and colloquiums from 2016
onwards are also made available through an electronic database.
Through the compendium, there has been a development of electronic institutional memory
of the training programs. The databases have made it easier to retrieve information and will
also be useful in ensuring equitable distribution of training opportunities to Judges and
magistrates. The information will eventually be made available to all Judges and magistrates
through an online portal.
6.6 Digitization at JTI
In line with the SJT goal of harnessing technology for service delivery, the Institute took
deliberate measures to leverage on digitization as a means of enhancing efficiency in the
exercise of its functions. Following the digitiazation, there has been positive service delivery
outcome, increased efficiency and verifiable institutional memory and record. The following
initiatives were completed during this period:
i. Introduction of a JTI e-Newsletter: The newsletter hosted in the main judiciary

website gives updates and details of activities at the Institute.
ii. Application of the judiciary (JIPMAS) e-leave management system: Staff were
trained on the various functionalities of the system and began using the same
during the period under review.
iii. Introduction of an e-requisition system: The system combines various modules
such as requisition, finance and AIE.
6.7 Publications
In collaboration with development partner’s, the publication of the following texts was
made possible.
i. Kerkering C and Mbazira C (eds) Justice Needs and Satisfaction Survey Report (2017).
ii. Odek JO Friend of the Court & the 2010 Constitution: The Kenyan Experience and Comparative
State Practice on Amicus Curiae (2017).
iii. Odek JO Election Technology Law and the Concept of “Did the Irregularity Affect the Result
of the Elections?” (2017).
The following publications were sourced and distributed to Judges and magistrates in specific
courts in order to enhance their knowledge of contemporary and emerging areas of law.
i. Distributed to all ELC Judges

- Okidi CO, Kameri-Mbote P and Aketch M Environmental Governance in Kenya
(2008).
- Kenya Law Reports Case Law on Land and Environment– CD (distributed to all ELC
Judges.)
ii. Distributed to all judges of the Superior Courts
- Capital Market Authority and Kenya Law Digest of Decisions on Capital Market
(2017)
- Katiba Institute Fair Administrative Action (2018).
iii. Training Manual on Environmental Law for Judges and Magistrates in Africa (2017)
(Manual developed in collaboration with KMJA.)
Chapter 7
INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE
7.0 Introduction
I
nfrastructure development is a major pillar in the transformation of the Judiciary as
articulated in the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT) blueprint. Currently,
102 court construction and rehabilitation works are at various stages of progress and
measures have been put in place to complete the projects within the stipulated timeframe
and budgetary provisions while maintaining good quality of finishes. Once completed,
these courts will provide adequate infrastructure that will improve physical access to courts
and reduce the distance travelled in search of justice.
To initiate and guide new infrastructure projects, the Institution developed a long-term
Judiciary Infrastructure Master Plan. This masterplan maps out the areas the institution
envisages to establish and build new courts in the coming 10 years. It also provides basic
expectations in a standard court that guides the Directorate of Building Services in the
designs. Through the involvement of the Court Users Committees, specific court building
design specifications are improved. Planning in undertaken to ensure that all new buildings
are disability friendly, ICT infrastructure is integrated, drilling of a borehole is incorporated
where necessary and there is provision of furniture, among others.
A strict monitoring mechanism has been established to forestall delays and substandard
work in construction projects. It is further anticipated that the capacity of DBS will be
enhanced through the recruitment of additional appropriate experts to enable them manage
construction projects in a timely and effective manner.
7.1 Achievements
During the period under review, the following achievements were made:
i). Ongoing construction and rehabilitation of 54 courts (see tables 7.1 and 7.2).
ii). New construction and rehabilitation of 13 courts (see tables 7.1 and 7.2).
iii). Tender evaluation for construction of 1 court (see table 7.1).
iv). Drilling and equipping of 13 boreholes (see table 7.3)
v). Shelving works at 10 courts (see table 7.4)
vi). Provision of furniture for 11 courts (see table 7.5)
a) Ongoing construction and rehabilitation of 54 courts (see tables 7.1 and 7.2)
The construction and rehabilitation works included construction of court rooms, public
waiting sheds, cells, masonry perimeter walling, and office partitioning works among
others. During the period under review, the following 13 construction and rehabilitation
projects were completed; Kigumo, Bomet, Nyando, Molo, Engineer, Othaya, Nkubu,
Makindu, Competitions tribunal, Mpeketoni, Ukwala, Siaya and JSC offices. On overage the
remaining 41 projects are 73% complete.
The projects that had large scopes of works were not completed on time due to various
challenges that included delayed payment, lengthy procedure for approvals of variations,
unfavorable weather conditions, poor performance by contractors and budgetary cuts. A
few examples with their specific challenges are as follows:
i. Embu Law Courts.

This involved construction of a five storey building that was to have 11 court rooms,
11 chambers, segregated cells, registries, and several offices. The main building is
partially completed on the ground and first floor. ICT facilities, electrical fittings,
plumbing facilities, lift and generator are in place. The project experienced delay in
timely completion due to lengthy process of approval of variations, delayed payment
to the contractors and budgetary cuts in the GoK funding.
ii. Prefabricated courts – Garsen, Runyenjes, Tawa, Marimanti, Wanguru, Bomet and
Othaya.
These were timber prefabricated buildings that comprised of two court rooms, two
chambers, cells, registries, and several offices. The projects were delayed by court
cases in relation to procurement process. The matters have since been determined
and works are complete or ongoing. Garsen, Othaya and Bomet are now complete
and handed over. Runyenjes, Tawa and Wanguru should be completed in the coming
financial year.
iii. Murang’a Law Courts.
The project entailed the addition of four court rooms and library to the existing
building. Progress has been very slow actuated by delayed payment to the contractor
due to austerity measures.
iv. Mandera Law Courts

During the reporting period, the management initiated the following interventions to
mitigate on the delays witnessed;
 Meetings with the contractors to develop new strategy on timely completion of
the projects.
 Elaborate engagement with Treasury to allocate and release more development
funds.
 Appointment of Contract Implementation Committees and Inspection and
Acceptance committees closer to the projects to unlock the contractual bottle
necks.
 Streamlining and fast tracking of payment processing.
b) New construction and rehabilitation of 10 courts (see tables 7.1 and 7.2).
During the period under review, the Judiciary commenced construction of new buildings
in order to bring justice closer to the people. The buildings are based on the model designs
developed by our Directorate of Building Services officers in-house and will have eight court
rooms and 12 chambers for the High Court model and four court rooms and five chambers
for the magistrate court model. Other features for both models are registries, service bays,
lactation rooms, ramps, gender separated cells, public washrooms, advocates lounge and
offices. The following new constructions commenced in the reporting period.
1. Habasweini Law Courts

The construction commenced on 28th September 2017 with a planned construction
period of 12 months. The new building is a magistrate court model that will have
four court rooms, five chambers and other associated facilities as mentioned above.
The project is funded through the GOK development fund at a contract sum of Ksh.
143,192,198. The work is being undertaken by M/S E-World International Ltd. It has
registered a progress of approximately 7%. The main challenge was the necessity to
change the foundation design due to unfavorable soil conditions.
2. Isiolo Law Courts

The project commenced on 4th October 2017 and has a contract period of 18 months.
It is a five storey building that will have eight court rooms and 12 chambers. It will
also have registries, lounges, cells and several offices. This is a World Bank funded
project with a contract value of Ksh. 378,082,160 and the main contractor is M/S Dallo
Holdings Ltd and as at the reporting period it was 46% complete.
3. Wajir Law Courts.

This project commenced on 27th September 2017 and has a contract period of 18 months.
It is a World Bank funded project and is modelled on the High Court design. The project
value is Ksh. 369,567,057 and the main contractor is M/S Anole Construction Ltd. The
works are 6% complete as at the end of the reporting period.
4. Ol- Kalou Law Courts.

The project commenced on 18th September 2017 has a contract period of 18 months.
On completion it will comprise of 8 court rooms, 12 chambers and other associated
facilities. The new building is funded by the World Bank at a contract sum of Ksh.
399,323,129. The main contractor is M/S Neliwa Builders Ltd. The foundation stone for
the project was laid on 11th October 2018. The works are at 16% completion.
5. Kakamega Law Courts

The Construction of the Kakamega Law courts commenced on 21st September 2017
and has a contract period of 18 Months. It’s a World Bank funded project and is
modelled on the High Court design with a project value is Ksh. 387,664,343. The
main contractor is M/S Hashit Construction Ltd. The project was 20% complete.
6. Mukurweini Law Courts.
This project is World Bank funded and modelled on the magistrate court design. It will
comprise of four court rooms and five chambers. It commenced on 19th September,
2017 with a contract duration is 12 months. The contract sum is Ksh. 158,978,307 and
the main contractor is M/S One Source Ltd. The works are 20% complete.
(The Chief Justice, Hon. Justice David Maraga (third right) assisted by the Governor for Nyandarua, H.E.
Francis Kimemia (Second left) laying the foundation stone for the Ol Kalau High Court complex on the
18th October, 2018.)
7. Mombasa Law Courts.

The construction of the Mombasa Law Court (Justice Towers) is a World Bank
funded projected modelled on a High Court design. Its construction commenced on
28th September 2017 with a contract period of 18 months. The project value is Ksh.
445,173,322 and the main contractor is M/S Bashash Ltd. As at the reporting period,
the works are 20% complete.
8. Makueni Law Court

This is a World Bank funded project modelled on the High Court design with a contract
period of 18 months. It commenced on 25th September 2017. The project value is Ksh.
410,099,717 and the main contractor is M/S Admo Construction Ltd. As at the reporting
period, the works are 20% complete.
9. Kangema Law Courts

The construction of Kangema Phase II commenced on 20th September 2017 with
a contract period of 18 months. On completion it shall have one court room, one
chamber, a registry and a lounge. It is a World Bank funded project with a value of
Ksh.42,992,271. The main contractor is M/S High Octane Ltd and the works are 38%
complete.
10. Kajiado Law Courts
Kajiado Law courts is a World Bank funded project modelled on a High Court design. It
commenced on 15th March 2018 with a contract period of 18 months. The project value
is Ksh. 398,404,995 and the main contractor is M/S Misbah Networks Ltd. The works
are 8% complete as at the reporting period.
c) Tender evaluation for construction of 1 court
The tender and proposed construction of Kapsabet Law Courts, (JPIP/NCB/

WORKS/05/2017-2018) was advertised on 26 April 2018. The tender was opened and is
th
under evaluation.
d) Drilling and equipping of 13 boreholes (see table 7.3)
Under the ongoing World Bank supported projects, contracts for the drilling and equipping
of 13 boreholes were awarded. The purpose was to ensure reliable and continuous supply of
clean water in these courts. The works were carried out in the stations listed below.
1. Tamu Law Courts (Muhoroni).

The drilling works commenced on 12th March 2018 with a contract period of 26 weeks.
They were carried out by M/S Ziyale Investments Ltd at a contract value of Ksh.
4,610,866. As at the reporting time, this project was 100% complete.
2. Oyugis Law Courts.

The works commenced on 13th March 2018 with a contract period of 26 weeks. The
works are being carried out by M/S Ziyale Investments Ltd at a contract value of Ksh.
4,610,866. The works are 60% complete.
3. Nyamira Law Courts.

The project was carried out by M/S Ziyale Investments Ltd with a contract value of
Ksh. 4,610,866. The works commenced on 14th March 2018 with a contract period of
26 weeks. The works are 100% complete.
4. Vihiga Law Courts.

The drilling works commenced on 14th March 2018 with a contract period of 26 weeks.
The works are being carried out by M/S Taxan Investments Ltd at a contract value of
Ksh. 3,921,700. The works are 90% complete.
5. Nyando Law Courts

The works commenced on 14th March 2018 with a contract period of 26 weeks. The
works were carried out by M/S Taxan Investments Ltd at a contract value of Ksh.
3,921,700. The works are 100% complete.
6. Siaya Law Courts
The drilling works are being carried out by M/S Taxan Investments Ltd at a contract
value of Ksh. 3,921,700. The works commenced on 14th March 2018 with a contract
period of 26 weeks. The works are 90% complete.
7. Molo Law Courts

The drilling is being carried out by M/S Wotech Ltd at a contract value of Ksh.
4,825,660. The works commenced on 14th March 2018 with a contract period of 26
weeks. The works are 70% complete.
8. Nakuru Law Courts

The drilling works are being carried out by M/S Wotech Ltd at a contract value of Ksh.
9. Engineer Law Courts

The works are being carried out by M/S Wotech Ltd at a contract value of Ksh.
10. Makindu Law Courts

The project is being carried out by M/S Iconic Drillers and Construction Company Ltd
at a contract value of Ksh. 4,178,730. The works commenced on 22nd May 2018 with a
contract period of 32 weeks. The works are 60% complete.
11. Garissa Law Courts

The drilling works were to commence on 22nd May 2018 with a contract period of 32
weeks and are to be carried out by M/S Iconic Drillers and Construction Company Ltd
at a contract value of Ksh. 4,178,730. The works have however not commenced.
12. Kigumo Law Courts

The works were to commence on 22nd May 2018 with a contract period of 32 weeks and
were carried are to carried out by M/S Iconic Dillers and Construction Company Ltd at
a contract value of Ksh. 4,178,730.. The works have however not commenced.
13. Chuka Law Courts

The drilling works commenced on 22nd May 2018 with a contract period of 32 weeks.
The works are being carried out by M/S Iconic Dillers and Construction Company Ltd
at a contract value of Ksh. 4,178,730. The works are 60% complete.
e) Shelving works at 10 courts (see table 7.4)
Judiciary identified the need to have reliable and safe facilities where court documents and
files can be stored. As a result, 40ft metal containers were fabricated with metal plates and
tubes to create functional registries. In some courts timber was used to produces shelves
that will be installed in registries.
The following courts will have metal shelving when the shelving projects are complete Kisii
Law Courts, Kitale Law Courts, Meru Law Courts, Kabarnet Law Courts, Marsabit Law
Courts, and Homabay Law Courts.
The six containers for each court will be installed by M/S Stockmart Ltd. The contract sum
for each container is Ksh 1,224,962. The project commenced on 4th November 2017 and
was to be completed on 4th May 2018. Two containers for Kisii and Homa Bay have since
been delivered. The others are yet to be delivered. The delay was necessitated by the need
to change the designs due to different user requirements and prevailing climate conditions.
The courts that will have timber shelving for their registries are; Bomet Law Courts, Kisumu
Law Courts, and Busia Law Courts. The above courts will have timber shelving fabricated by
M/S Tawash Construction Company Ltd at a contract sum of Ksh. 29,825,478. The contract
commenced on 24th October 2017 and was expected to be complete by 24th April 2018. Works
at all the courts are 20% and the contractor has been urged to expedite on the completion
of the works.
Milimani Law Courts will also have timber shelving and this is being fabricated by M/S
Glennsteam Engineering Works Ltd. The contract also entails construction of a customer
care and record centre. The Contract sum is Ksh. 50,348,410. The contract commenced on
18th October 2017 and was expected to be complete by 18th June 2018. The works are at 30%.
f) Provision of furniture for 11 courts (see table 7.4)
The supply and delivery of office furniture contract was awarded to M/S Timsales Ltd at a
contract sum of Ksh. 105,372,963. The contract commenced on 8th January 2018 and was
expected to be completed by 8th April 2018. The period was extended to 31st December 2018.
The initial completion date was not achieved because the Main Contractor had difficulty in
getting raw materials for fabrication due to the ban on timber logging.
It is envisaged that Furniture will be delivered to the new buildings when the fabrication is
complete. The assorted office furniture include; office chairs, filing cabinets, office desks,
chairs, lockable shelving, coat hangers, wooden tables, sofa sets, work stations, white
boards, carrels, credenza, trolleys, book shelves and lecterns
Completed projects
These projects were funded by the World Bank, through the Judicial Performance
Improvement project (JPIP) and the Government of Kenya. The projects are at various stages
of construction, while some have been completed and handed over to Judiciary.
The following eight new court buildings were completed during the review period.
1. Kigumo Law Courts

The Kigumo Law Court building was constructed at a cost of Sh74.8 million. The
construction started in September 2015 with an initial completion date of September
2016, which was later revised to December 2018. It consists of three court rooms,
separate registries for each division, new cells which have separate holding facilities for
men, women and juveniles complete with toilets, client consultation rooms near the
holding cells, a well-stocked library for judicial officers and advocates together with
a lounge, and three chambers for judicial officers. Ramps for the disabled have been
included in the construction. In addition, a borehole will be installed at a cost of Ksh.
4.2 million to ensure there is steady supply of water. It construction was undertaken
Ms Marimo Building Contractors and funded under the JPIP programme.
2. Makindu Law Courts

This is a one storey building that comprises four court rooms, five chambers, gender
segregated cells, registries and several offices. The building also has a waiting area
and washrooms for Judiciary clients. Ramps have been incorporated in the building.
The World Bank funded this project at a cost of Ksh 96,855,446 and the contract was
executed by M/S Gracan Construction Ltd. The construction commenced on 8th March
2016 with a planned completion date of 8th March 2017 which was extended to 30th
May 2018.
3. Bomet Law Courts

The building is made of pre-treated well-seasoned timber. It has two court rooms, two
chambers, cells (made of masonry blocks), registries and several offices. The project
was funded through the GOK development budget and was envisaged to be completed
in five months but encountered difficulties because court cases on the procurement
process. The contract was awarded to M/S Economic Housing Group Ltd at a cost of
Ksh. 81,664,580. The project commenced on 15th January 2013 and was expected to
be completed by 31st May 2013. After determination of the issues by the court, the
contract period was extended to 31st December 2018. The building is complete and is
being used by the court.
4. Nyando Law Courts

The new building comprises three court rooms, three chambers, cells, registries and
several offices. Other features include a public waiting area, washrooms, generator
house and sentry block. This was a World Bank funded project which was executed
by M/S Philmark System Services Ltd at a contract sum of Ksh. 74,827,121. The
construction commenced on 4th September 2015 with an initial completion date of 2nd
September 2016, which was extended to 6th March 2018.
5. Molo Law Courts

The building comprises of four court rooms, four chambers, cells, registries, library
and several offices. It also has a public waiting area, washrooms, generator house and
sentry house. The project was funded by the World Bank at a cost of Ksh.99, 910,995.
The contract was executed by M/S Atlas Plumbers Ltd. The construction commenced
on 19th May 2015 with an expected completion date of 17th May 2016. The period was
however extended to 24th May 2018.
6. Engineer Law Courts

The building comprises two court rooms, two chambers, cells, registries, library and
several offices. It also has a public waiting area, washrooms, generator house and
sentry house. It was funded by World Bank at a cost of Ksh.78, 615,579 The contract
was executed by M/S Yomason Contractors Ltd. The construction commenced on 8th
June 2015 and was expected to be completed on 8th August 2016, however, the period
was extended to 21st March 2018.
7. Nkubu Law Courts

The building consists of five court rooms, five chambers, cells, library and several
offices. A ramp was also constructed to cater for people with physical disability. The
building was constructed using funds from GOK development budget at a cost of Ksh.
85,958,760. The main contractor was M/S Just in Time. The construction commenced
on 12th January 2015 and was completed on 30th December 2017.
8. Othaya Law Courts

The building is made of pre-treated well-seasoned timber that has two court rooms,
two chambers, cells (made of masonry blocks), registries and several offices. The
project was funded through the GOK development budget and was envisaged to have
been completed in five months from 15th January, 2013 but it encountered difficulties
because of court cases. The contract was was awarded to M/S Economic Housing
Group Ltd at a cost of Ksh. 81,664,580. After determination of the issues by the court,
the time was extended to 31st December 2018. The building is complete and is being
used by the court.
Six new court buildings were partially completed during the reporting period and are in
use. These are:
1. Chuka Law Courts

The building comprises six court rooms, six chambers, cells, registries, library and
several offices. It also has a public waiting area, washrooms, generator house and sentry
house. It is funded by the World Bank at a cost of Ksh. 98,106,543 The contract was
executed by M/S Philmark System Services Ltd. The construction commenced on 5th
June 2015 and was expected to be completed on 13th June 2016. The period was extended
to 23rd July 2018.
2. Muhoroni Law Courts

The building comprises 2 court rooms, 2 chambers, cells, registries, library and several
offices. It also has a public waiting area, washrooms, generator house and sentry house.
It is funded by the World Bank at a cost of Ksh. 74,879,919 The contract was executed
by M/S Philmark System Services Ltd. The construction commenced on 6th September
2015 and was expected to be completed on 8th June 2016. The period was extended to 30th
September 2018.
3. Vihiga Law Courts

The building comprises of two court rooms, two chambers, cells, registries, library and
house. It is funded by World Bank at a cost of Ksh. 74,879,919 The contract was executed
by M/S Philmark System Services Ltd. The construction commenced on 6th September
2015 and was expected to be completed on 8th June 2016. The period was extended to 30th
September 2018.
4. Nyamira Law Courts

The building comprises of four court rooms, five chambers, cells, registries, library and
house. It was funded by World Bank at a cost of Ksh. 118,305,748. The contract was
executed by M/S J.N. Investments Ltd. The construction commenced on 18th June 2015
and was expected to be completed on 17th June 2016. The period was however extended
to 21st September 2018.
5. Tawa Law Courts

The building is made of pre-treated well-seasoned timber. It has two court rooms, two
chambers, cells (made of masonry blocks), registries and several offices. The project was
funded through the GOK development budget. The contract was award was awarded to
M/S Timsales Ltd at a cost of Ksh. 99,959,218. The project commenced on 23rd January
2013 and was expected to be completed by 31st May 2013. After determination of the
issues by the court, the contract period was extended to 31st December 2018. The building
is practically complete and is being used by the court.
6. Oyugis Law Courts

The building comprises three court rooms, two chambers, cells, registries, library and
house. It was funded by World Bank at a cost of Ksh. 109,731,080 The project is being
executed by M/S Sasah Contractors Ltd. The construction commenced on 29th June 2015
and was expected to be completed on 28th June 2016. The period was extended to 14th
November 2018.
258
Table 7.1. Details of projects funded by World Bank through JPIP
STATUS REPORT OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY WORLD BANK (THROUGH JPIP) AS AT 30TH JUNE 2018
No. Project Court Contractor’s Name Contract Amount Start Date Initial Revised Initial % Completeness Status Report
Station Completion Completion Contract FY 2016 FY 2017-
Date Date Period (Wks) -2017 2018
Ongoing projects
1 Kigumo Law Kigumo Marimo 94,160,933.00 29/06/15 29/06/16 18/9/2018 52 98% 100% Complete
Courts Construction
Limited
2 Chuka Law Chuka Philmark System 96,881,316.00 05/06/15 13/06/16 23/7/2018 52 78% 87% On-going
Courts Services Limited
3 Engineer Law Engineer Yomason 78,615,579.00 08/06/15 08/08/16 21/3/2018 52 98% 99% Practically
Courts Contractors Limited complete
4 Vihiga Law Vihiga Lunao Enterprises 78,476,529.00 16/09/15 14/09/16 14/11/2018 52 88% 96% On-going
Courts Limited
5 Nyando Law Nyando Philmark System 74,827,121.00 04/09/15 02/09/16 06/03/18 52 84% 99% Practically
Courts Services Ltd complete
6 Molo Law Courts Molo Atlas Plumbers 99,910,995.00 19/06/15 17/06/16 24/5/2018 52 98% 98% Practically
Limited complete
7 Oyugis Law Oyugis Sasah Contractors 109,731,080.00 29/06/15 28/06/16 21/9/2018 52 88% 95% On-going
Courts Limited
8 Nyamira Law Nyamira JN Investments 118,305,748.00 18/06/15 17/06/16 18/9/2018 52 65% 90% On-going
Courts Limited
9 Muhoroni Law Tamu Philmark System 74,879,919.00 06/09/15 08/06/16 30/9/2018 52 75% 97% On-going
Courts (Tamu) Services Limited
10 Nakuru Law Nakuru Diwafa Investments 347,765,950.00 18/02/16 18/08/17 18/10/2018 110 80% 80% On-going
Courts Limited
11 Siaya Law Siaya Nanchang/GL 342,751,951.00 21/03/16 21/09/17 22/11/2018 110 60% 70% On-going
Courts Williams JV
12 Garissa Law Garissa Inshallah Limited 351,323,457.00 22/01/16 22/07/17 11/05/18 110 40% 72% On-going
Courts
13 Makindu Law Makindu Gracan Construction 96,855,446.00 08/03/16 07/03/17 30/5/2018 52 90% 100% Complete
Courts Limited
14 Nanyuki Law Nanyuki Pinnie Agency 318,559,759.00 10/03/16 10/09/17 12/10/18 110 60% 76% On-going
Courts Limited
15 Kibera Law Nairobi Havi Construction 137,649,133.00 13/04/16 13/04/17 30/6/2018 52 40% 65% On-going
Courts
16 Voi Law Courts Voi Concordia Building 347,582,674.49 29/03/2017 29/09/2018 78 5% 45% On-going
& Eng. Limited
17 Kapenguria Law Kapenguria County Builders Ltd 400,880,621.00 21/03/2017 21/09/2018 78 5% 40% On-going
Courts
18 Maralal Law Maralal Debroso 378,745,872.00 23/03/2017 23/09/2018 78 8% 35% On-going
Courts Construction
Limited
19 Kwale Law Kwale Inforserve Networks 389,998,592.00 05/06/17 11/06/18 78 5% 32% On-going
Courts Limited
New projects
20 Isiolo Law Court Isiolo Dallo Holdings 379,082,160.90 04/10/17 10-10-18 78 8% 46% On-going
Limited
21 Wajir Law Wajir Anole Construction 369,567,057.00 27/9/2017 27/3/2019 78 0% 6% On-going
Courts Co. Limited
22 Ol-Kalou Law Ol-Kaluo Nelliwa Builders 399,323,129.00 18/9/2017 17/3/2019 78 0% 16% On-going
Courts
23 Kakamega Law Kakamega Hashit Construction 387,664,343.33 21/9/2017 21/3/2019 78 0% 20% On-going
Courts & General Sup.
Limited
24 Mukurweini Law Mukurweini One Source 158,978,307.00 19/9/2017 18/9/2018 52 0% 20% On-going
Courts Company Limited
25 Mombasa Law Mombasa Bashash Ltd 445,173,322.65 28/9/2017 28/3/2019 78 0% 20% On-going
Courts
26 Makueni Law Makueni Admo Ltd 410,099,717.10 25/9/2017 25/3/2019 78 0% 20% On-going
Courts
27 Kangema Law Kangema High Octane 42,992,271.57 20/9/2017 18/9/2018 52 0% 38% On-going
Courts (Phase II) Engineering Ltd
28 Kajiado Law Kajiado Misbah Networks 398,407,995.00 15/3/2018 15/9/2019 78 0% 8% On-going
Courts Ltd.
Tender evaluation
29 Kapsabet Law Kapsabet 120 0% 0% Tender
Courts evaluation
259
260
Table 7.2. Details of borehole projects.
STATUS REPORTS OF BOREHOLE PROJECTS FUNDED BY WORLD BANK (THROUGH JPIP) AS AT JUNE 30, 2018
Initial
Contract Initial
Court Contractor’s Contract
No. Project Amount Start Date Completion % Completeness Status Report
Station Name Period
(Ksh) Date
(Wks)
FY 2016 FY 2017-
1 CLUSTER-D CONTRACTS
-2017 2018
Muhoroni Law Courts, Practically
a) Tamu 4,610,866 12/03/2018 12/08/2018 26 0% 80%
Tamu Ziyale complete
b) Oyugis Law Courts Oyugis 4,610,866 13/03/2018 13/08/2018 26 0% 0% On-going
Investments Ltd Practically
c) Nyamira Law Courts Nyamira 4,610,866 14/03/2018 14/08/2018 26 0% 0%
complete
2 CLUSTER-C CONTRACTS
a) Vihiga Law Courts Vihiga 3,921,700 14/03/2018 14/08/2018 26 0% 90% Complete
Taxan Investment
b) Nyando Law Courts Nyando 3,921,700 14/03/2018 14/08/2018 26 0% 100% Complete
Ltd
c) Siaya Law Courts Siaya 3,921,700 14/03/2018 14/08/2018 26 0% 90% Complete
3 CLUSTER-B CONTRACTS
a) Molo Law Courts Molo 4,825,660 14/03/2018 14/08/2018 26 0% 70% On-going
b) Nakuru Law Courts Nakuru 4,825,660 14/03/2018 14/08/2018 26 0% 20% On-going
Wotech Ltd
c) Engineer Law Courts Engineer 4,825,660 14/03/2018 14/08/2018 26 0% 20% On-going

4 CLUSTER-A CONTRACTS
a) Makindu Law Courts Makindu 4,178,730 22/05/2018 22/01/2019 32 0% 20% On-going
Iconic Drillers & Not
b) Garissa Law Courts Garissa 4,178,730 22/05/2018 22/01/2019 32 0% 0%
Construction Co. commenced
Not
c) Kigumo Law Courts Kigumo Ltd 4,178,730 22/05/2018 22/01/2019 32 0% 0%
commenced
e) Chuka Law Courts Chuka 4,178,730 22/05/2018 22/01/2019 32 0% 40% On-going
Table 7.3. Details of shelving projects.

STATUS REPORT OF SHELVING PROJECTS FUNDED BY WORLD BANK(THROUGH JPIP) AS AT 30TH JUNE 2018
Initial
Contract Amount Initial Contract Status
Project Court Station Contractor’s Name Start Date Completion % Completeness
(Ksh) Period (Wks) Report
Date
FY 2016 FY 2017-
SHELVING – (FABRICATED CONTAINER)
-2017 2018
1 Kisii Law Courts Kisii 1,224,962.00 04/11/2017 04/05/2017 26 0% 100% Complete
2 Kitale Law Courts Kitale 1,224,962.00 04/11/2017 04/05/2017 26 0% 0%
3 Meru Law Courts Meru Stocksmart Kenya 1,224,962.00 04/11/2017 04/05/2017 26 0% 0%
4 Kabarnet Law Courts Kabarnet Supplies Limited 1,224,962.00 04/11/2017 04/05/2017 26 0% 0%
5 Marsabit Law Courts Marsabit 1,224,962.00 04/11/2017 04/05/2017 26 0% 0%
6 Homabay Law Courts Homabay 1,224,962.00 04/11/2017 04/05/2017 26 0% 100% Complete
TIMBER SHELVING REGISTRIES - KISUMU,BOMET, BUSIA, MILIMANI
1 Bomet Law Courts Bomet 24/10/2017 24/04/2018 26 0% 20%
Tawash Construction
2 Kisumu Law Courts Kisumu 24/10/2017 24/04/2018 26 0% 20%
Company Limited 29,825,478.00
3 Busia Law Courts Busia 24/10/2017 24/04/2018 26 0% 20%
Glennsteam
4 Milimani Law Courts Milimani Engineering Works 18/10/2017 18/’06/2018 26 0% 30%
50,348,410.00
Limited
Table 7.4. Details of furniture projects.

STATUS REPORT OF FURNITURE PROJECTS FUNDED BY WORLD BANK(THROUGH JPIP) AS AT 30TH JUNE 2018
Court Contractor’s Contract Completion Initial Contract
Project Start Date % Completeness
Station Name Amount (Ksh) Date Period (Wks)
Status Report
FY FY
2016 -2017 2017-2018
FURNITURE CONTRACTS
261
262
1 Muhoroni Law Courts (Tamu) Tamu 6,912,678.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
2 Oyugis Law Courts Oyugis 10,032,713.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
3 Nyamira Law Courts Nyamira 10,041,068.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
4 Vihiga Law Courts Vihiga 10,096,853.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
5 Nyando Law Courts Nyando 10,020,678.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
6 Kigumo Law Courts Kigumo Timsales Ltd 7,962,567.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
7 Molo Law Courts Molo 9,514,658.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
8 Chuka Law Courts Chuka 9,713,206.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
9 Engineer Law Courts Engineer 6,907,822.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
10 Makindu Law Courts Makindu 9,766,190.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
11 Kibera Law Courts Kibera 14,404,530.00 08/01/2018 08/04/2018 13 0% 2% Fabrication on-going
Table 7.5. Details of projects funded by Government of Kenya
STATUS REPORT OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY GOK AS AT 30TH JUNE 2018
Initial % Completeness
Court Contract
Project Contractor’s Name Start Date Completion Projected Initial FY 2016 FY 2017 Status Reports
Station Amount (Ksh.)
Date -2017 -2018
Ongoing projects
Homabay Law Contractor on site,
1 Homabay Pepeta Holdings Limited 367,308,473.46 13/03/17 30/07/18 72 4% 26%
Courts slow progress
Kabarnet Law Badole Construction Contractor not on site,
2 Kabarnet 366,798,387.60 17/03/17 17/09/18 72 6% 15%
Courts Limited slow progress
Marsabit Law Contractor on site,
3 Marsabit Dido and Sons Limited 370,222,599.79 17/03/17 17/09/18 72 6% 18%
Courts good progress
Amagoro Law Contractor on site,
4 Amagoro Sow Contractors Limited 137,988,040 13/03/17 13/03/18 13/03/19 54 1% 15%
Githongo Law Contractor on site,
5 Githongo Nash Investments Limited 130,895,657.00 04/05/17 04/04/18 04/04/19 54 5% 26%
Kandara Law Microsoft Construction Contractor on site,
6 Kandara 137,817,417.00 04/03/17 04/04/18 17/03/19 54 8% 22%
Courts Limited good progress
Machakos Law Contractor on site,
7 Machakos Manyota Ltd 34,084,690.00 18/05/17 18/11/17 18/05/18 24 20% 65%
Marsabit Law Contractor on site,
8 Marsabit Precision Civil Eng. Limited 10,888,254.42 02/05/17 17/10/17 13/03/19 72 20% 75%
Completed and
9 Supreme Court Nairobi Dapalk Contractors Limited 21,538,285.00 04/04/17 04/10/17 15/1/-18 16 90% 98%
awaiting handing over.
Kiambu law Law Contractor on site,
10 Kiambu Outlet Branding Limited 31/05-17 08/01/18 08/07/18 24 55% 95%
Courts 7,510,360.00 good progress
Mbita Law Derow Construction Contractor on site,
11 Mbita 15/03/17 14/03/18 14/03/19 52 10% 29%
Courts Limited 148,325,073.00 slow progress
Hamisi Law Contractor on site,
12 Hamisi Pendeza Contractors 04/12/15 03/11/16 11/04/18 48 85% 95%
Courts 55,199,905.00 slow progress
263
264
Contractor on site,
Manyota Limited 15/01/15 15/09/16 18/10/17 84 97% 100%
178,932,022.32 slow progress
Jufex-Auto Hardware Co. Contractor on site,
15/01/15 15/09/16 84 87% 100%
Limited 9,555,546.40 slow progress
Masterpiece Electricals
15/01/15 15/09/16 84 100% Completed
Embu Law Limited 8,058,350.00
13 Embu
Courts Muga Electrical Contractors
15/01/15 15/09/16 84 90% 100% Completed
Limited 19,279,228.00
Manyota Ltd (Lift
13,500,000.00 15/01/15 15/09/16 84 90% 100% Completed
installations)
Pluton Ltd (ICT Contractor on site,
23,578,502.00 60% 100%
installations) slow progress
Completed and
Nkubu Law
14 Nkubu Just In Time Africa Limited 85,958,760.80 12/01/15 30/12/16 78 98% 100% handed over to Client
Courts
on 1st Nov. 2017.
Muranga Law Volcanic General SC Contractor on site,
15 Muranga 19/05/15 20/02/16 17/08/18 36 70% 75%
Courts Limited 62,086,413.20 poor progress
Mandera Law Contractor on site,
16 Mandera El-Yumo Contractors 19/05/15 20/02/16 30/12/18 52 60% 65%
Courts 107,034,445.00 slow progress
Resjos Contractors Limited 65,194,539.00 26/10/15 04/07/16 30/12/18 36 70% 80% Contractor not on site.
17
The Insta-Pumps
Narok Law 6,496,900.00 26/10/15 70% 70%
Narok Engineering
Courts-Phase II
PowerPoint Systems
26/10/15 0% 0%
Limited 2,330,270.00
Butali Law Dynamic Green Contractor on site,
18 Butali 32,690,725.60 09/03/15 04/03/16 18/10/18 52 80% 83%
Courts Technologies good progress
Eldama Ravine Eldama
19 Green Heights Ventures 04/02/15 03/03/16 52 80% 95% Practically complete
Law Courts Ravine 81,882,269.70
Port Victoria
20 Port Victoria Nolads Engineering Limited 46,529,557.00 12/02/15 12/02/16 27/06/18 52 85% 93% Poor progress.
Law Courts
Eldoret Law
21 Eldoret Sudafric Group Limited 38,095,640.00 23/02/15 27/06/16 18 85% 85% Contractor not on site
Courts
Othaya Law
22 Othaya 81,664,580.00 15/01/13 31/05/16 30/12/18 70% 95% Practically complete
Courts
Wanguru Law
23 Wanguru 81,664,580.00 15/01/13 31/05/16 30/12/18 70% 70% No progress
Courts
Economic Housing Group
Marimanti Law
24 Marimanti 81,664,580.00 15/01/13 31/05/16 30/12/18 80% 80% No progress
Courts
Bomet Law
25 Bomet 81,664,580.00 15/01/13 31/05/16 30/12/18 90% 100% Complete
Courts
Runyenjes Law Contractor on site,
26 Runyenjes 99,959,218.00 23/01/13 31/05/16 30/12/18 85% 90%
Timsales Limited
Tawa Law Contractor on site,
27 Tawa 99,959,218.00 23/01/13 31/05/16 30/12/18 85% 90%
Contractor on site,
Dantax Enterprises 33,940,580.00 19/11/14 19/03/15 29/06/18 16 75% 85%
slow progress
Mombasa Court
28 Mombasa Kaminara Agencies Limited 11,465,680.00 19/11/14 19/03/15 29/06/18 16 75% 85% Slow progress
of Appeal
HotPoint Appliances
6,385,539.00 19/11/14 19/03/15 29/06/18 16 75% 85% Slow progress
Limited
Nyeri Court of Thwama Building Services Contractor on site,
29 Nyeri 18,482,123.00 17/04/14 02/10/15 30/12/18 24 95%
Appeal Limited slow progress
Siaya Law Completed and
30 Siaya Nyobu Enterprises Limited 9,720,800.00 03/11/15 03/05/16 26 90% 100%
Courts handed over to Client.
Karatina Law Web Commercial Systems Contractor on site,
31 Karatina 6,911,255.00 04/05/17 15/09/18 54 60% 65%
New projects
Habasweini Law E-world International Contractor on site,
32 Habasweini 143,192,128.00 28/9/17 27/09/18 52 0% 7%
Contractor on site,
33 JSC offices Nairobi Gracan Limited 18/08/17 15/11/17 24 0% 85%
13,748,982.00 slow progress
Makadara Law Automark Engineering
34 Makadara 9,895,300.00 23/07/17 13/10/17 23/06/18 16 0% 60% Contractor not on site.
Courts Limited
Competitions
35 Nairobi Ready Go Limited 4,694,150.00 23/07/17 23/09/17 8 60% 100% Complete
Tribunal
Mpeketoni Law
36 Mpeketoni Centurion Eng. Limited 34,327,784.00 01/04/15 30/10/15 24 95% 100% Complete
Courts
Ukwala Law
37 Ukwala Ambe General Merchants 4,590,833 30/05/17 26/09/17 16 75% 100% Complete
Courts
Competitions
38 Nairobi Ready Go Limited 4,694,150.00 23/06/17 18/8/17 8 60% 100% Complete
Tribunal
265
NOTES
266
200 200
32100 14000 10980 GENERAL
PEDESTRAN ACCESS 1.All measurements are shown in millimetres. Measurements should not be
EXIT ENTRY scaled off the drawing.
2. The contractor must check and verify all dimensions before commencing
any work. Any disrepancy
SECURITY
OFFICE
must be notified to the architect.
ARMOURY 3. All sections should be read as per floor plan and all drawings must be read
10 No. PUBLIC in concert with each other.
BODY
PARKING SCANNER
Any disreprancy should be notified immediately to the Designer and clarified
2500mm WIDE by consulting the respective Consultants' drawings.
ELECTRICAL
4. All electrical work must be co-ordinated with Mechanical works. Any
conflicts must be clarified before work begins.
CONSTRUCTION
5.
CIVIL
6.
STRUCTURAL
7.
AND LIFT CORE

SLAB ABOVE STAIR
6 No. PUBLIC
PARKING 5 No. PUBLIC
REVISIONS
2500mm WIDE PARKING
2500mm WIDE
OVER VOID
SOLAR GLASS ROOF
FOREST DEPARTMENT
PROJECT :
SOLAR GLSS ROOF OVER VOID

PROPOSED LAW
COURT BUILDING,
KWALE
OVER VOID
AND LIFT CORE

SOLAR GLASS ROOF
SLAB ABOVE STAIR

Drawing title
MAGISTRATE
&
BLOCK PLAN
JUDGES SCALE : 100
PARKING
Client
THE JUDICIARY
OVER VOID
AND LIFT CORE
SOLAR GLASS ROOF

WAITING SHED
SLAB ABOVE STAIR

Project job No. Drawing No.
AND LIFT CORE

JUD/DBS/JPIP/KWL
SLAB ABOVE STAIR
Name Signed Date
Drawn
Arch .
TOILETS
ROOM
SWITCH
ROOM
ROOM
GENERATOR
TRANSFORMER
APPROVED
CHIEF ARCHITECT
THE JUDICIARY
OF KENYA
DIRECTORATE OF BUILDING SERVICES D S
B
GSPublisherVersion 0.50.100.100
NOTES
GENERAL
1.All measurements are shown in millimetres. Measurements should not be
scaled off the drawing.
2. The contractor must check and verify all dimensions before commencing
any work. Any disrepancy
must be notified to the architect.
3. All sections should be read as per floor plan and all drawings must be read
in concert with each other.
Any disreprancy should be notified immediately to the Designer and clarified
by consulting the respective Consultants' drawings.
ELECTRICAL
4. All electrical work must be co-ordinated with Mechanical works. Any
conflicts must be clarified before work begins.
CONSTRUCTION
5.
CIVIL
6.
STRUCTURAL
7.
REVISIONS
PROJECT:
PROPOSED LAW
COURT BUILDING,
KWALE
Drawing title
PERSPECTIVES
Client
THE JUDICIARY
Project job No. Drawing No.

JUD/DBS/JPIP/KWL
Name Signed Date
Drawn
Arch.
APPROVED
CHIEF ARCHITECT
THE JUDICIARY
OF KENYA
DIRECTORATE OF BUILDING SERVICES
D S
B
GSPublisherVersion 0.50.100.100
267

.:/

.:$/(


*.:$/(
.:/


.:$/(
.:/


*.:$/(
.:/


.:$/(
.:/


.:$/(
.:/

.:$/(
ASSORTED PROJECT PROGRESS PHOTOGRAPHS
A. COMPLETED PROJECTS
1. Kigumo Law Court.
2. Nyando Law Court.
3. Nkubu Law Court
4. Makindu Law Court
B. ONGOING PROJECTS
1. Wajir Law Court
2. Ol kalou Law Court
Chapter 8
DIGITAL STRATEGY
DIGITAL STRATEGY
8.0 Introduction
T
he emerging trends in technology have opened possibilities of immense innovations
in the public service. The Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have
the potential to improve the administration of justice, as well as ensure institutional
efficiency and effectiveness.
The fourth pillar of the Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF) (2012-2016) identified
ICT as a key result area that would facilitate speedier trials and enhance administrative
efficiency. JTF has been very successful in meeting its objectives, guided by its underlying
philosophy of laying the foundations of Judiciary transformation. The launch of Sustaining
Judiciary Transformation; A Service Delivery Agenda 2017-2021 (SJT), built on the
foundation laid by JTF. SJT has outlined a roadmap in adoption of new technologies under
the Digital Strategy to automate court processes and deliver judicial services efficiently and
effectively. The Digital Strategy provides for ICT solutions that are citizen-centric, aimed at
easing access to and interaction with judicial services and make all citizen-directed services
mobile-friendly and put all services online.
The Integrated Court Management System (ICMS) Committee was mandated to coordinate
the implementation of the Digital Strategy for administrative and judicial management
systems for the Judiciary. The Committee, chaired by Court of Appeal Judge, Hon. Mr.
Justice Gatembu Kairu has its membership drawn from various stakeholders within the
Judiciary and representation from the ICT Authority.
Currently, the Committee implements its mandate through three subcommittees which are
transcription, e-filing, and case management. During the reporting period, the Judiciary
embarked on the implementation of the Digital Strategy as outlined in the SJT Blueprint.
The progress made under each of these categories is discussed further in this chapter.
8.1 Judiciary digital strategy
SJT provides a Digital Strategy that outlines the ICT programmes and projects planned for
implementation across the Judiciary under five categories. These are Judicial Operations
Support Systems, Court Management Systems, Enterprise Resource Planning, Document
and Archive Management, and ICT Infrastructure. The programmes aim to automate all
functions of the institution by 2021.
8.1.1 Judiciary operation support system
The automation of the court registry function is critical to achieving improved delivery of
justice, transparency and accountability that will significantly accelerate the disposal of
cases to benefit all actors in the justice sector. Key projects to be implemented over this
period include E-filing and a Case Tracking System for selected registries in Nairobi and
Mombasa as described below;
8.1.2 The electronic filing (e-filing) system
The e-filing system is the preparation and submission of case documents electronically
(online) to the registry either for a new case or filing in an existing case and making electronic
payments for the documents filed. The e-filing system provides a platform for law firms,
lawyers and non-lawyers to initiate and complete the process of filing cases remotely.
The development of the first e-filing prototype application was completed towards the end
of 2017, and the review on the improvement of the application continued until February
2018. The main functionalities of the e-filing system are; e-case registration, automated fee
assessment, and e-payment. The solution is under pilot phase at the Commercial and Tax
Division in Milimani where 333 cases have been filed online and payment of Ksh 1.9 million
made through the KCB Mpesa solution. More than 14 law firms are participating in the pilot
project.
The project has incorporated various service providers and stakeholders which include the
Law Society of Kenya (LSK), advocates, the Milimani Business Court Users Committee,
Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB), Safaricom and eCitizen to develop an environment for an
e-filing process.
E-filing system home page.
8.1.3 Case tracking system (CTS)
The Case Tracking System (CTS) is a Management Information System that tracks all activities
in the lifecycle of a case from case initiation to final disposal. CTS has the following key
features: electronic case registration, court fees management, case activity management,
cause listing, daily court returns template (DCRT), and reporting modules that automate the
key functions of the court registries.
The pilot test of CTS was completed in September 2017 at the Milimani High Court,
Commercial and Tax Division. Thereafter, the solution was deployed at registries in Nairobi
and Mombasa, Supreme Court, Milimani High Court, Milimani Environment and Land
Court, Employment and Labour Relations Court, Milimani Chief Magistrates Court and
Mombasa Law Courts in November 2017.
The status of the cases captured in the system is as shown below;

Table 8.1 Cases Captured in the Case Tracking System as at June 30, 2018
SN COURT STATION DIVISION/COURT RANKS CASES

1 Supreme Court Building Supreme Court 104
2 Court of Appeal Court of Appeal 616
Milimani Environment and Land
3 Environment and Land Court 6,205
Court
High Court Anti - Corruption and Economic
4 Milimani High Court 242
Crimes Division
5 High Court High Court Civil Division 15,229
High Court Commercial and Tax Division 14,186

High Court Constitution and Human Rights
1,796
Division
High Court Criminal Division 3,756
High Court Family Division 29,593

High Court Judicial Review Division 2,033
6 Milimani Children’s Court Magistrate Court - Children Division 9,114
7 Milimani Magistrate Court Magistrate Court - Anti -Corruption Court 114
Magistrate Court - Criminal Court 4,735
Magistrate Court - Traffic Court 1,471
8 Naivasha High Court High Court Naivasha 4,856
9 Milimani Court Employment and Labour Relations Court 4,107
10 Mombasa High Court 9,588
Mombasa ELC 3,534
Mombasa
Mombasa ELRC 2,624
Mombasa Magistrates Court 21,969
11 Mombasa Kadhi’s Court Mombasa Kadhi’s Court 1,028
12 Tononoka Law Courts Tononoka Children’s Court 3,785
13 Shanzu Law Courts Shanzu Law Court 1,720
14 Kiambu Law Courts Kiambu Magistrate Courts 5,384
15 Total Cases Captured 147,789
8.2 Court management systems
This program includes all the in-court and chambers’ systems that support the determination
of cases and includes transcription, legal references and searches, note taking support and
document composition, security and distribution. Examples of these systems include the
audio and video recording of court proceedings, the production of transcripts, and speech to
text solution for ruling and judgment writing. Some of the projects undertaken are outlined
below;
8.2.1 Court Recording and Transcription Solution (CRTS)
In June 2018, The ICMS Committee approved and adopted for implementation the Court
Recording and Transcription System (CRTS) model to be rolled out in the Judiciary. The
system will have live recording of proceedings in all courtrooms and on-demand production
of transcripts from the recording. The system is currently being implemented at the
Supreme Court and was used during the Presidential Petition1 where all the recordings were
transcribed. The solution is also currently running at two courtrooms of the Commercial
and Tax Division of the High Court at the Milimani Law Courts.
8.2.2 Speech to text solution
Writing judgements is a key function for judges, magistrates, Kadhis, and Tribunal members,
that can be facilitated by a speech-to-text solution. The solution provides a device and
software that takes audio content and automatically transcribes it into a written form in
a word processor. In September 2017, the Judiciary issued the speech to text devices to 20
judges and magistrates.
8.3 Enterprise Resource Planning
The Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system is a business process management software
that allows an organization to use integrated applications to manage the business and
automate all back-office functions related to technology, services, and human resources.
The main objective of the ERP is to automate the administrative units to improve on internal
service delivery. The areas that have been planned for automation include budgeting,
planning, resource management such as AIE, deposit management, expenditure, delinking
of the court stations accounts from sub-county treasury among others. The ERP will also be
critical in the financial management of the Judiciary Fund2.
During the reporting period, several projects have been initiated as discussed below;
8.3.1 Judiciary Financial Management Information System ( JFMIS)
The main objective of JFMIS is to automate and digitally document all payment transactions
done at the court stations so as to enhance transparency and accountability. The system
has enhanced the court stations’ accounting functions under the expenditure, revenue and
1 Presidential Petition No. 1 of 2017; and Presidential Election Petition 2 & 4 of 2017
2 Judiciary Fund Act No. 16 of 2016
deposit modules. The Judiciary improved the system in May 2018 to enhance its functionality
for digital payments and electronic receipting. The use of the system has improved financial
reporting and has delinked a total of (50) court stations from the district treasury thus
improving service delivery.
8.3.2 Judiciary Asset Management System ( JIAMS)
Asset Management is an important administrative function of the Judiciary under Finance,

Human Resources and Administration, and the Supply Chain Management functions. The
system was developed to capture all assets in the Judiciary and to facilitate the of an asset
register. As at June 30, 2018, the system had documented about 60 per cent of its fixed and
movable assets aimed at providing an accountable record of ownership of the institution’s
property. The system captured 7,933 assets within the reporting period.
8.3.3 Judiciary integrated performance management and accountability system ( JIPMAS)
The Judiciary introduced a Performance Management and Measurement Understanding

(PMMU) tool aimed at institutionalizing performance management under the guidance
of the Performance Management and Measurement Steering Committee (PMMSC). The
committee uses a manual process of evaluation and appraisal process to assess all court
stations and individuals. To improve the process, it was necessary to automate the procedure
of performance management, targets setting and evaluation. The development of JIPMAS
was finalized in October 2017 with functionalities that include court and implementing unit’s
performance (PMMU), individual performance appraisals (PAS) and Leave Management.
The system was piloted in eight court stations and online leave management commissioned
in three directorates, namely ICT, HRA and Performance Management.
Judiciary integrated performance management and accountability System home page.
8.3.2 Judiciary ombudsman online service desk
In 2012, the Judiciary deployed a web-based service desk solution (service.judiciary.

go.ke) to manage complaints received in the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman. The main
objective of this platform was to provide an automated channel for our clients to submit any
requests or complaints to the Judiciary. The system provides the client with clear timelines
for resolution of complaints. In November 2017, the system was upgraded to include new
features such as improving the accuracy of the ticket counter, providing ticket status report,
enhancing the reporting features, and improving the general performance of the system.
8.3.3 Automated ICT support desk
The ICT Support desk system was developed in November 2017 to manage all incidences,
issues and service requests through an online ticketing system. The system will ensure that
ICT services issues are tracked and resolved in an efficient and effective way.
8.4 Document and archive management
With the many automation projects, the Document and Archive Management system is
necessary to manage the digital content being generated. A rudimental content management
system has been developed as part of the e-filing system during the year under review.
Development efforts are ongoing to improve on the system to manage all digital content
including the court recordings, court documents filed online and scanned documents
from existing court files. This refers to digitization, archiving, duration, publication and
distribution of extant legal documents.
Document and Archive Management System home page.
8.5 ICT Infrastructure
The connectivity, data centre and ICT equipment are the foundation of the ICT Solution and
the Judiciary has prepared a robust plan to have the infrastructure in place to ensure the
solutions are reliable and scalable. The Judiciary has outlined Data Centre enhancement,
business continuity and disaster recovery plan, structured cabling, WiFi Connectivity,
internet connectivity and equipment delivery. In this reporting period the Judiciary
provided WiFi and other internet facilities to 80 Court Stations out of the 139.
Stations Connected to Internet as at 30th June 2018
SN COURT STATION BW ISP

1 BARICHO LAW COURTS 8 Safaricom
2 BOMET LAW COURTS 8 Viakom Ltd
3 BONDO LAW COURTS 8 Mimajo Ltd
4 BUTALI LAW COURTS 8 Safaricom
5 BUTE KADHIS COURTS 4 Celex Ltd
6 BUTERE LAW COURTS 8 Safaricom
7 CHUKA LAW COURTS 8 Swiftsync Ltd
8 ELDAMA RAVINE LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
9 ELDAS KADHIS COURTS 4 Koricha Inv
10 GARSEN LAW COURTS 6 Telkom Kenya
11 GATUNDU LAW COURTS 8 Gener Ltd
12 GICHUGU LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
13 GITHONGO LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
14 GITHUNGURI LAW COURTS 8 Caption Ltd
15 HABASWEINI KADHIS COURTS 4 Koricha Inv
16 HOLA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
17 HOMA BAY LAW COURTS 8 Glop Ent
18 ITEN LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
19 JKIA LAW COURT 8 Access Kenya
20 KABARNET LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
21 KAJIADO LAW COURTS 8 Bowen Ltd
22 KALOLENI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
23 KANDARA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
24 KAPENGURIA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
25 KARATINA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
26 KEHANCHA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
27 KEROKA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
28 KERUGOYA LAW COURTS 10 Telkom Kenya
29 KIGUMO LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
30 KILIFI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
31 KIMILILI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
32 KITHIMANI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
33 KWALE LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
34 LAMU LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
35 LIMURU LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
SN COURT STATION BW ISP
36 LODWAR LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
37 LOITOKTOK LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
38 MARALAL LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
39 MARIAKANI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
40 MARIMANTI LAW COURTS 8 Safaricom
41 MASENO LAW COURTS 8 MTN
42 MAVOKO LAW COURTS 8 Access Kenya
43 MBITA LAW COURTS 8 Cyber Soft
44 MIGORI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
45 MOLO LAW COURTS 8 Bemoz Ent
46 MOYALE LAW COURTS 8 Iftu Ltd
47 MPEKETONI LAW COURTS 4 Telkom Kenya
48 MUKURWEINI LAW COURTS 8 Access Kenya
49 MUMIAS LAW COURTS 8 Safaricom
50 MURANGA LAW COURTS 10 Movers Tech
51 MUTOMO LAW COURTS 8 iWay Africa
52 MWINGI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
53 NAKURU CHILDRENS COURT 3 Telkom Kenya
54 NANYUKI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
55 NDHIWA LAW COURTS 8 Glop Ent
56 NKUBU LAW COURTS 8 Amroreenz Ltd
57 NYAHURURU LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
58 NYAMIRA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
59 NYANDO LAW COURTS 8 Britcom Ltd
60 OGEMBO LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
61 OTHAYA LAW COURTS 8 iWay Africa
62 OYUGIS LAW COURTS 8 Glop Ent
63 SIAYA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
64 SIRISIA LAW COURTS 8 Safaricom
65 SOTIK LAW COURTS 8 Viakom Ltd
66 TAMU LAW COURTS 8 MTN
67 TAVETA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
68 THIKA LAW COURTS 10 Access Kenya
69 TIGANIA LAW COURTS 8 Polaris Ltd
70 TONONOKA LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
71 UKWALA LAW COURTS 8 Moscom Ltd
72 VIHIGA LAW COURTS 8 Safaricom
73 VOI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
74 WAJIR LAW COURTS 8 Celex Ltd
75 WANG’URU LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
76 WEBUYE LAW COURTS 8 Digi Capital
77 WINAM LAW COURTS 8 Britcom Ltd
78 WUNDANYI LAW COURTS 8 Telkom Kenya
79 MILIMANI LAW COURTS 50 Access Kenya
80
SUPREME LAW COURT 30 Access Kenya
Sample Photo Gallery from Garissa Law Courts with WIFI system Installed
8.6 Judiciary ICT policy and master plan
The ICT Policy and ICT Master Plan 2018-2022, was developed by the ICMS Committee and
approved by the Judicial Service Commission in September 2017. The two documents will
govern the implementation of ICT in the Judiciary. It seeks to achieve efficiency, productivity
and timeliness in the implementation and use of ICT solutions in the achievement of
the strategic objectives of the Judiciary. The policy is deemed critical in governing and
coordinating the use of ICT in the Judiciary to ensure that it is well regulated and leveraging
its use to meet the objectives of the organization. The policy document will facilitate users as
it outlines the standards, guidelines and procedures to ensure safe, effective and secure use
of ICT. It further outlines the rights and obligations of users while using ICT solutions. The
key policy areas covered in this policy include ICT governance, infrastructure, equipment
management, software and information systems, business continuity and disaster recovery
and ICT security. The policy has outlined the governance structure of ICT in the Judiciary as
illustrated below:
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF ICT
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDICIAL SERVICE
COMMISSION
ICMS COMMITTEE
CHIEF REGISTRAR
DIRECTOR ICT
HEAD HEAD
ICT SYSTEMS ICT OPERATIONS
ENTERPRISE ICT
COURT SYSTEMS ICT SUPPORT
SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE
SERVICE
The ICT Master Plan has incorporated all the programs of the Digital Strategy in the SJT and
outlined implementation timelines with an integrated approach to ensure all the projects
result into an e-Judiciary.
The e-Judiciary has three pillars namely; Pillar 1 - E-Court Systems, Pillar 2 -Enterprise
Resource Systems – ERP and Pillar 3 - Communication and Collaboration. These are
anchored on three foundations namely Integrated ICT Infrastructure, Human Resource
Capacity, Change Management and Policy, and Legal and Institutional Framework. The
illustration of the ICT Master Plan is as shown below:
Conclusion
The year under review, laid the foundation for the implementation of the five programmes
as outlined in the SJT and discussed in detail above.
In this coming year, review of the legal and regulatory framework to support automation
will be critical. The use of digital technology as part of the court process will need to be
anchored in law.
The Court Recording and Transcription Solution (CRTS) and Case Tracking System (CTS)
will be rolled out in all court stations with priority for stations with a Court of Appeal,
High Courts including courts of equal status. The expected deliverables to the public will
be increased access to online case information; performance reporting of judicial matters;
communication to litigants and their legal teams by email and SMS; and effective and
efficient methods of making payments to the Judiciary.
Chapter 9
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS
9.0 Introduction
T
his chapter presents an analysis of the Judiciary’s financial performance covering
areas such as funding within the national context, including a comparative analysis
of overall budgetary allocation for the three Arms of Government and also within the
Governance Justice Law and Order Sector (GJLOS, the Judiciary’s resource requirements
versus the allocation, and the approved budget estimates and expenditure analysis. In
addition, the chapter provides information on revenue and deposits from courts; automation
of revenue, expenditure and deposits; delinking of court station accounts from the sub-
county treasuries, and the progress realized in the operationalization of the Judiciary Fund.
The last section examines the financial challenges faced by the Judiciary.
9.1 Funding the Judiciary within the national context
The Judiciary prepares its budget estimates in accordance with the Constitution and the
Public Finance Management (PFM) Act. The PFM Act requires all Government entities to
prepare their budget estimates through the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)
process. The MTEF is a programme-based budgeting process that requires an entity to set
its key strategic objectives and expected outputs for the MTEF period and further identify
performance indicators that are used to measure the achievement realized. During the
financial year under review, the strategic objectives were drawn from the Strategic Plan
(2014-2018) and Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT) Blueprint (2017-2021). The
outputs identified were implemented through a programme entitled “Dispensation of
Justice” which comprises two sub-programmes, namely:
(i) Access to Justice

(ii) General Administration Planning and Support Services.
The Access to Justice sub-programme took the largest share of resources as it focuses on the
core mandate of the Judiciary.
9.1.1 Overall budgetary allocation for the three Arms of Government
The overall national budget has been growing steadily from Kshs. 1.5 trillion in the FY 2015/16
to Kshs 1.7 trillion in the FY 2016/17, and Kshs 2.0 trillion in the FY 2017/18. However,
Judiciary’s budget has not grown in tandem with the overall national budget. Figure 9.1
provides an analysis of the overall budget allocation within the three Arms of Government
namely the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature.
Figure 9.1: Budget allocation trend among the Arms of Government
Figure 9.1 shows that the Judiciary has over time been allocated the least amount of money
compared to the Executive and the Legislature. The Executive has been receiving the lion’s
share of the National Budget at an average of 97 per cent. The Judiciary budget has remained
below 1 per cent of the national budget over the years. In the FY 2017/18, the budget went
down to 0.7 per cent, negatively impacting on the achievement of planned targets and
consequent realization of the Judiciary’s mandate.
9.1.2 Recurrent and development budget allocation for the three Arms of Government
Recurrent expenditure covers the day to day expenditure which does not result in the
creation or acquisition of fixed assets and mainly for payment of salaries, purchase of goods
and services, and other operations and maintenance. The development expenditure results
in the creation or acquisition of fixed assets such as construction and refurbishment of court
buildings. Figure 9.2 presents budgetary allocation within the three Arms of Government
for the recurrent budget.
Figure 9.2: Percentage recurrent budget allocation for the Arms of Government
Figure 9.2 shows that allocation for the recurrent budget for the Executive improved from
95.6 per cent in FY 2016/17 to 96.8 per cent in FY 2017/18. The allocation for the Judiciary
reduced from 1.4 per cent in FY 2016/17 to 0.9 per cent in FY 2017/18. This affected the
financing of key enablers for justice in the Judiciary. The expectation was for an increment
in Judiciary budget to fund critical emerging issues notably the hearing and finalization of
election disputes. This led to accumulation of recurrent pending bills amounting to Kshs.
246 million at the end of the financial yers. A comparison of budgetary allocation within the
Arms of Government for the development budget is elaborated in Figure 9.3.
Figure 9.2: Percentage development expenditure allocation for Arms of Government
Figure 9.3 shows that the development budgetary allocation for the Judiciary’s reduced
from 0.5 per cent in FY 2016/17 to 0.2 per cent in FY 2017/18. The budget for the Executive
grew from 99.1 per cent to 99.5 per cent over the same period while that for Parliament
it slightly reduced from 0.4 to 0.3 per cent. Reduction in development budget for the
Judiciary impacted negatively on the financing of the ongoing infrastructural projects such
as courts and ICT projects. This resulted in failure to complete some of the capital projects
since some of the payment certificates could not be honoured. This resulted in pending bills
amounting to Kshs 282 million. Consequently, this impacted negatively on the Judiciary’s
determination to enhance access to and expeditious delivery of Justice. Details of recurrent
and development budgets for the three arms of the Government for the MTEF period 2015/16
– 2017/18 are given in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Trend on Recurrent and Development Expenditure Allocation FY 2015/16-2017/18
(Kshs Million)
FY Executive Parliament Judiciary Total

Recurrent 776,700 24,813 11,684 813,197
2015/16
Development 720,051 2,100 3,115 725,266
Recurrent 884,914 27,434 12,956 925,304
2016/17
Development 794,228 3,150 4,153 801,531
Recurrent 1,301,256 29,878 12,706 1,343,840
2017/18
Development 724,362 2,188 1,568 728,118
9.2.1 Budget Requirements in the Governance Justice Law and Order Sector (GJLOS)
The GJLOS sector comprises 14 Government Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs).
Table 9.2 presents a comparative analysis of the budgetary allocation for the GJLOS
institutions in the MTEF period FY 2015/16 – FY 2017/18.
296
Table 9.2: Governance Justice Law and Order Sector (GJLOS)
MDA Recurrent Approved Allocation Development Approved Allocation Overall Budget Allocation in %
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
1. State Department for 100,225 107,935 116,258 13,578 27,946 15,331 113,803 135,881 131,589 69.1 64.2 60.6
Interior
2. State Department for 17,120 20,227 22,798 611 525 553 17,731 20,752 23,351 10.8 9.8 10.8
Correctional services
3. State Law Office 4,430 5,040 4,536 379 239 132 4,809 5,279 4,668 2.9 2.5 2.2
Department of Justice
4. The Judiciary 11,684 12,956 12,706 3,115 4,153 1,568 14,799 17,109 14,274 9.0 8.1 6.6
5. Ethics and Anti-Corruption 2,957 3,230 3,069 300 250 1,268 3,257 3,480 4,337 2.0 1.6 2.0
Commission
6. Office of the Director of 2,384 2,115 1,994 73 98 5 2,457 2,213 1,999 1.5 1.0 0.9
Public Prosecutions
7. Office of the Registrar 534 827 809 0 0 0 534 827 809 0.3 0.4 0.4
Political Parties
8. Witness protection Agency 370 388 442 0 0 0 370 388 442 0.2 0.2 0.2
9. Kenya National
Commission on Human 459 421 399 0 0 0 459 421 399 0.3 0.2 0.2
Rights
10. Independent Electoral and 4,878 23,065 32,660 27 552 712 4,905 23,617 33,372 3.0 11.2 15.4
Boundaries Commission
11. Judicial Service 472 450 284 0 0 0 472 450 284 0.3 0.2 0.1
Commission
12. National Police Service 476 435 548 0 0 0 476 435 548 0.3 0.2 0.3
Commission
13. National Gender and 310 387 346 18 18 0 328 405 346 0.2 0.2 0.2
Equality Commission
14. Independent Policing and 396 485 696 0 0 0 396 485 696 0.2 0.2 0.3
Oversight Authority
SUM TOTAL 146,693 177,961 197,545 18,101 33,781 19,569 164,794 211,742 217,114 100.0 100.0 100.0
For the past three FYs, the allocation for the Judiciary averaged at 7.9 per cent. The allocation
for the Judiciary has been on a downward trend from an allocation of 9 per cent in FY
2015/16 to 8 per cent in FY 2016/17 to 6.5 per cent in FY 2017/18 within the GJLOS. Figure
9.4 presents the share of resource envelop in the GJLOS for the FY 2017/18.
Figure 9.4: Percentage budgetary allocation within the GJLOS for FY 2017/18
Figure 9.4 shows that the in the FY 2017/18 State Department for Interior was allocated
more than half of the entire budget allocated to the GJLOS. The Independent Electoral and
Boundaries Commission (IEBC) received 15.37 per cent of budget, State department for
Correctional Services received 10 per cent while the Judiciary received 7 per cent of the
total GJLOS budget.
9.3 Judiciary budget requirements versus the allocated Budget
Table 9.3 provides a comparison of the Judiciary’s resource requirements and resource
allocation over the past three fiscal years.
Table 9.3: Judiciary resource requirements versus allocation
Financial Year Requirement (Billion Allocation (Billion Percentage Percentage

Kshs) Kshs) Allocation shortfall
2015/16 26.609 14.799 56% 44%
2016/17 23.366 17.109 73% 27%
2017/18 35.951 14.274 40% 60%
Table 9.3 shows that there was a huge budget deficit of 60 per cent in the FY 2017/18. Total
budget allocation declined by 17 per cent from 17 billion in FY 2016/17 to 14.2 billion in FY
2017/18. This led to an accumulation of overall pending bills amounting to Kshs 528 million.
9.4 Approved budget estimates
Total approved budget for the FY 2017/18 amounted to Kshs 14.27 billion which comprised
of Kshs 12.70 billion recurrent and 1.57 billion development. Out of the allocated funds
for development vote 78 per cent (Kshs. 1.23 billion) was from World Bank under JPIP
programme. Hence, only 22 per cent (Kshs 340 million) of the development budget was
from GOK.
9.5 Expenditure Analysis and Absorption Levels
The Judiciary budget allocations in FY 2015/16 was Kshs. 14.79 billion which grew by 16 per
cent to stand at Kshs. 17.1 billion in FY 2016/17 and declined by 17per cent to Kshs. 14.27
billion in FY 2017/18. The actual expenditure attained in FY 2015/16 was Kshs. 12.95 billion
which is 87 per cent of the year’s allocation. In the FY 2016/17 the actual expenditure was
Kshs. 15.3 billion which was 89.7 per cent of the years’ allocation. In FY 2017/18 the actual
expenditure was Kshs. 13.5 billion representing 94per cent of the allocation. Therefore,
Judiciary has over time realized a high absorption rate to the tune of 90 per cent over the
past three years. This means that the average absorption rate was 90 per cent. Details on the
recurrent expenditure by economic classification are expounded in Table 9.4.
Table 9.4: Analysis of Recurrent Approved Budget Vs Actual Expenditure (Kshs. Million)
Economic Classification Approved Allocation Actual Expenditure

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Gross 11,684 12,956 12,706 11,259 12,506 11,659
AIA - - - - -
Net 11,684 12,956 12,706 11,259 12,506 11,659
Compensation to Employees 6,442 7,409 7,683 6,325 7,266 7,280
Transfers 842 772 934 770 771 818
Other Recurrent 4,400 4,775 4,089 4,164 4,470 3,561
11,684 12,956 12,706 11,259 12,507 11,659
Table 9.4 shows that recurrent budget allocation increased by 11 per cent between the
FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 and then dropped by 2 per cent in FY 2017/18. The share of
compensation to employees over the total recurrent budget increased from 56 per cent in
FY 2015/16 to 60 per cent in FY 2017/18 while that of ‘other recurrent’ declined from 37 per
cent and 32 per cent over the said fiscal years. Transfers rose by 11 per cent from Kshs 842
million in FY 2015/16 to Kshs 934 million in FY 2017/18. The actual expenditure attained
under the recurrent vote was 96 per cent, 97 per cent and 92 per cent in the three Financial
Years respectively. Absorption under compensation to employees was at 98 per cent in FYs
2015/6 and 2016/17 but dropped to 95 per cent in FY 2017/18. On other recurrent, absorption
was 95 per cent in FY 2015/16, 94 per cent in FY 2016/17 then dropped to 87 per cent in FY
2017/18. On the transfers, the absorption was 91 per cent in FY 2015/16, 100 per cent in FY
2016/17 and 87.5 per cent in FY 2017/18. Table 9.5 shows trend analysis of approved and
actual development expenditure by source of funding.
Table 9.5: Analysis of approved development budget Vs actual expenditure (Kshs Million)
Economic Approved Allocation Actual Expenditure

Classification 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Gross 3,115 4,153 1,568 1,687 2,795 1,829
GOK 776 1,450 340 603 536 306
Loans 2,259 2,600 1,228 1,082 2,251 1,523
Grants 80 103 - 2 8 -
Local AIA - - - - -
Net 3,115 4,153 1,568 1,687 2,795 1,829
Totals 3,115 4,153 1,568 1,687 2,795 1,829
From Table 9.5, development budget allocation increased from 3,115 million in the FY
2016/17 and then reduced by 62 per cent to 1568 million in FY 2017/18. The share of GOK
funding over the total development budget was 25 per cent in FY 2015/16 and increased
to 35 per cent in FY 2016/17 then declined to 22 per cent in FY 2017/18. During the period
under review, there were no grants. The aggregate share of donor funds was 75 per cent, 65
per cent and 78 per cent in the three fiscal years respectively. The percentage expenditure
analysis is explained in Figure 9.5.
Figure 9.5: Percentage absorption rate for the recurrent and development budget (2015/16-
2017/18)
The actual expenditure attained under the development vote was 54 per cent, 67 per cent
and 117 per cent in the three FYs respectively. Absorption under GOK was at 78 per cent in
FYs 2015/16, 37 per cent in FY 2016/17 and rose to 90 per cent in FY 2017/18. Donor funds’
absorption was 46 per cent in FY 2015/16, 84 per cent in FY 2016/17 and 124 per cent in
FY 2017/18. The over absorption under the development vote in FY 2017/18 is attributed
to the reclassification of donor funding method from Revenue to Appropriations -In-Aid
(AIA) during the fourth quarter. This effect, compounded by budget reduction during the
supplementary budget revision, caused negative balances due to existing commitments. The
analysis of approved and actual budget by programme and sub-programme is highlighted
in Table 9.6.
Table 9.6: Analysis of Programme/Sub-Programme expenditure (Kshs Million)
Approved Budget Actual Expenditure

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Programme 1: Dispensation of Justice
Sub-Programme 1: Access to Justice 9,592 11,309 10,462 8,195 10,094 9,990
Sub-Programme 2: Administration and 5,207 5,800 3,812 4,752 5,207 3,498
Support Services
Total Programme 14,799 17,109 14,274 12,946 15,301 13,488
Table 9.6 above outlines expenditure for the two main its sub-programs, Access to Justice
and Administration and Support Services, for the FY 2015/16 – 2017/18. Access to Justice
Sub-program received a larger portion of the total budget allocation at 65per cent, 66 per
cent and 73 per cent respectively for the period under review. Information on programme
expenditure by economic classification is given in Table 9.7.
Table 9.7: Programme Expenditure by Economic Classification (Kshs. Million)
Approved Budget Actual Expenditure

Economic Classification 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Programme 1: Dispensation of Justice
Current Expenditure 12,706 11,659
Compensation to Employees 6,442 7,409 7,683 6,325 7,266 7,280
Use of goods & Services 2,702 2,529 3,023 1,791 2,301 2,373
Grants and Other Transfers 842 772 934 770 771 818
Other Recurrent 1,807 2,246 1,065 2,397 2,168 1,188
Capital Expenditure
Acquisition of Non-Financial Assets 3,006 4,153 1,568 1,663 2,795 1,829
Capital Grants to Govt. Agencies 20 - - 20 - -
Other Development 89 - - 4 - -
Total Program 14,908 17,109 14,274 12,970 15,301 13,488
Total Vote 1261 14,908 17,109 14,274 12,970 15,301 13,488
Allocation for compensation to employees increased from Sh6.4 billion in FY 2015/16 to

Sh7.7 billion in FY 2017/18 being 54 per cent and 60 per cent of the total recurrent allocation.
The approved budget on use of goods and services decreased marginally by 6 per cent in FY
2016/17 but increased by 20 per cent of the total recurrent allocation in 2017/18. Allocation
for grants and other transfers to Semi Autonomous Government Agencies (SAGAs) increased
by 21 per cent between FY 2016/17-2017/18 as more tribunals joined the Judiciary.
9.6 Court Revenue
The Judiciary is a receiver of revenue on behalf of the National Government. Its revenue
comprise court fees, fines, forfeitures and other charges paid directly into the Treasury
accounts as revenue through a resolution by Parliament on April 14, 2010, requiring that all
court fees and other Appropriations-in-Aid received by the Judiciary be transferred directly
to the Treasury. The Judiciary has a policy on non-collection of cash hence all revenue is
received in all court stations through cashless systems mainly direct banking, M-Pesa
and through agency banking. These avenues have minimized the risks associated with the
handling of cash and boosted revenue collections and accountability.
All the revenue collected is then paid to the Treasury account at the Central Bank of Kenya.
The total revenue collected in FY 2017-18 amounted to KShs 2.075 billion compared to KShs
1.972 billion in FY 2016-17. The increase was as a result of improved cash collection methods.
Table 9.8 shows the comparative figures for revenue collection for the three financial years.
Table 9.8: Revenue collections over the last three financial years
FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Year
KShs’000 KShs’000 KShs’000
Fines 1,470,055 1,125,429 1,123,836
Fees 838,003 847,029 954,904
TOTAL 2,308,058 1,972,458 2,078,740
As shown on Table 9.8, there was a decrease in fines collected by less than 1 per cent from
KShs 1.125 billion in FY 2016-17 to KShs 1.124 billion in FY 2017-18. Fees grew by 13 per
cent from KShs 847 million in FY 2016-17 to KShs 954 million in FY 2017-18. The growth
in revenue could be attributed to increase in filed cases that increased by 52,355 cases from
344,180 cases in FY 2016/2017 to 396,535 cases in FY 2017/2018. The Judiciary continued its
policy of not collecting any cash payment. Table 9.9 gives comparative figures of revenue
collections and estimates for the last three financial years.
Table 9.9: Analysis of actual revenue collection against the estimated revenue
Year Revenue Estimate Actual Difference Realization

KShs KShs KShs
FY 2017/2018 2,907,508,135 2,078,739,966 -828,768,169 71%
FY 2016/2017 1,610,597,206 1,972,458,573 361,861,367 122%
During the period under review, the Judiciary realized 71 per cent of its revenue collection
estimates, although there was an actual increase in the amount of money collected. The
slight decline in fines was due to various factors, including refund of fines upon successful
appeals. The comparative growth in fees could be attributed to growth in filed cases from
344,180 cases filed in the FY 2016/2017 to 402,243 cases filed in FY 2017/2018, and increase
in the number of cases resolved from 88 per cent in FY 2016/17 to 92 per cent during the
review period. Revenue control measures have been tightened and enhanced to cap revenue
leakages within the Judiciary. In the FY 2017/18, the Judiciary introduced a revenue
sweeping policy whereby revenue collected by court stations across the country is auto-
transferred to the Judiciary’s main revenue collection account every month to minimize the
amount of revenue held by court stations.
Figure 9.6: Trend on fines and fees, FY 2015/16 – FY 2017/18
Total revenue declined from KShs 2.3 billion in FY 2015/2016 to KShs 1.97 billion in FY
2016/2017. This was followed by a recovery to KShs 2.08 billion in FY 2017/2018. Table 9.10
provides information on court fines and fees for the three financial years.
Table 9.10: Court Fines and Fees for FY 2016/17 – FY 2017/18
Station 2017/2018 2016/2017 2015/2016 2017/2018 2016/2017 2015/2016

No. KShs KShs KShs KShs KShs KShs
1 Balambala - - - 54,850 20,050 -
2 Baricho 11,559,742 8,300,049 15,409,754 3,061,877 3,158,946 2,575,798
3 Bomet 7,777,852 7,728,306 9,528,665 2,453,942 2,092,675 2,297,998
4 Bondo 4,399,572 2,000,748 3,702,798 2,138,464 1,911,635 1,267,418
5 Bungoma 8,896,812 13,441,274 18,758,150 10,336,655 9,770,887 11,590,882
6 Busia 3,449,592 4,787,009 8,612,362 3,667,616 4,783,841 7,115,183
7 Butali 3,055,135 4,491,097 5,733,669 2,562,323 1,746,631 1,631,763
8 Butere 2,856,854 3,478,221 5,705,152 1,899,467 1,787,957 1,256,005
9 C.O.Appeal - - - 18,397,849 11,022,192 11,763,385
10 Chuka 7,385,783 6,581,054 5,477,563 4,290,571 4,188,572 4,077,945
11 Dadaab - - - 165,325 126,750 -
12 E.L.R.C. 300,000 30,000 600,000 9,677,311 10,664,951 8,691,598
13 EldamaRavine 8,683,066 6,963,645 5,731,817 1,941,507 1,333,537 1,551,102
14 Eldoret 30,540,115 36,175,725 27,746,539 27,280,162 16,445,320 16,527,259
15 Embu 9,134,220 8,115,457 10,010,363 7,868,042 6,942,084 8,254,116
16 Engineer 4,580,295 1,678,535 3,018,745 2,477,438 2,378,234 2,393,403
17 Garissa 10,917,894 24,131,572 26,504,231 2,091,871 1,947,938 1,381,199
18 Garsen 295,225 761,979 1,059,272 687,655 1,202,365 721,589
19 Gatundu 6,165,286 5,302,404 6,148,695 4,812,082 3,034,557 3,520,313
20 Gichugu 3,234,902 2,370,283 4,338,983 1,305,169 1,859,756 1,234,710
21 Githongo 3,574,648 3,247,416 5,227,668 1,819,220 1,558,523 921,503
22 Githunguri 4,470,978 4,307,749 2,567,379 2,536,948 1,663,758 1,938,607
23 Hamisi 1,874,635 697,846 1,523,216 397,377 279,405 447,083
24 Hola 340,348 516,653 110,162 460,487 544,164 89,267
Station 2017/2018 2016/2017 2015/2016 2017/2018 2016/2017 2015/2016
25 HomaBay 3,539,085 3,200,600 4,846,136 3,834,461 2,376,125 4,918,612
26 Ijara - - - 138,675 107,650 -
27 Isiolo 3,487,534 3,075,400 5,611,919 2,309,156 1,919,772 1,143,096
28 Iten 5,251,808 3,816,259 6,902,432 771,755 346,653 502,840
29 JKIA 18,173,330 19,630,996 - 94,715 63,305 -
30 Kabarnet 3,352,460 1,881,717 5,939,648 1,402,157 568,791 549,881
31 Kajiado 14,149,349 18,848,727 18,611,380 11,767,257 8,655,831 5,814,390
32 Kakamega 10,620,776 6,509,159 13,088,374 10,533,879 8,024,388 9,376,617
33 Kakuma 2,008,560 820,120 3,053,132 53,785 47,030 128,710
34 Kaloleni 1,171,768 1,030,738 1,744,722 1,938,073 1,508,485 962,065
35 Kandara 3,756,927 2,805,272 3,183,317 3,017,744 1,857,761 1,986,111
36 Kangema 3,854,660 3,376,720 5,745,112 1,376,360 813,373 811,685
37 Kangundo 9,412,182 8,185,520 4,519,328 4,250,657 1,993,824 1,767,623
38 Kapenguria 4,835,038 5,943,402 6,894,384 965,340 927,958 909,061
39 Kapsabet 17,379,383 10,429,779 26,073,741 3,676,905 2,575,845 3,515,425
40 Karatina 2,965,059 2,485,539 2,584,676 2,935,850 3,038,439 1,959,448
41 Kehancha 2,071,086 1,965,304 2,599,843 446,506 535,745 292,793
42 Kericho 14,151,421 17,837,094 24,583,290 7,625,100 6,823,520 8,649,877
43 Keroka 3,348,445 6,724,573 6,697,805 2,082,304 2,384,099 1,932,759
44 Kerugoya 3,554,429 4,826,834 6,301,752 7,013,484 7,078,643 9,328,950
45 Kiambu 11,772,219 11,734,990 10,855,351 13,160,388 11,383,702 7,069,469
46 Kibera 68,744,528 63,815,620 60,818,189 688,533 425,465 527,980
47 Kigumo 7,197,597 5,722,516 7,373,280 4,036,603 2,079,607 2,612,938
48 Kikuyu 8,038,864 12,729,379 11,037,713 6,561,873 6,490,985 6,095,562
49 Kilgoris 7,644,045 5,492,755 5,208,330 732,002 527,779 932,307
50 Kilifi 2,073,800 1,485,726 3,285,802 5,307,749 2,833,588 4,202,767
51 Kilungu 17,536,908 10,933,971 10,276,605 4,719,496 2,281,250 2,477,407
52 Kimilili 3,097,432 4,303,376 6,285,355 1,422,050 1,113,880 1,327,676
53 kisii 14,117,704 16,899,275 17,670,121 13,469,506 11,757,356 16,322,031
54 Kisumu 10,449,127 14,752,603 14,588,154 23,509,222 22,018,392 24,630,463
55 Kitale 18,723,884 22,601,835 38,191,630 10,089,226 10,700,507 9,634,705
56 Kithimani 5,660,490 8,577,669 13,939,398 3,827,285 3,998,264 3,403,327
57 Kitui 6,262,481 4,868,443 8,574,372 6,073,352 4,589,133 4,212,405
58 Kwale 7,286,087 4,689,376 13,225,116 6,066,911 4,012,300 4,245,971
59 Kyuso 3,853,690 1,766,278 3,337,826 258,349 308,108 723,173
60 Lamu 504,499 758,758 1,115,684 542,420 477,695 317,595
61 Limuru 7,377,405 7,412,844 9,226,081 5,939,998 5,618,380 5,380,505
62 Lodwar 2,820,422 3,134,317 2,357,254 846,664 448,067 320,958
63 Loitokitok 3,169,394 636,380 - 410,878 25,110 -
64 Machakos 20,261,995 13,909,827 13,971,531 30,231,812 15,513,858 20,427,445
65 Makadara 43,549,124 31,999,783 86,868,516 562,730 265,160 271,467
66 Makindu 11,327,357 12,037,156 19,550,771 5,655,808 4,053,518 5,526,035
67 Makueni 2,978,379 1,033,478 2,759,338 4,761,288 1,099,840 1,217,754
68 Malindi 6,047,675 5,994,854 9,263,703 14,651,034 12,039,754 15,593,633
69 Mandera 7,599,807 2,901,130 8,661,920 1,189,813 428,565 511,897
70 Maralal 2,437,096 2,264,344 2,839,402 331,430 376,870 339,432
71 Mariakani 13,029,019 10,621,644 49,888,567 5,113,389 4,256,690 4,073,210
72 Marimanti 876,135 1,422,168 3,633,446 441,125 - 556,871
73 Marsabit 3,054,035 1,311,496 2,595,811 1,409,761 472,480 1,053,789
74 Maseno 2,362,302 4,974,238 12,355,109 1,168,992 1,130,823 1,472,597
75 Maua 2,949,447 5,844,829 10,030,025 3,464,190 2,713,461 2,844,529
Station 2017/2018 2016/2017 2015/2016 2017/2018 2016/2017 2015/2016
76 Mavoko 42,192,369 12,854,392 35,543,712 18,134,536 7,519,059 8,950,481
77 Mbita 1,893,458 1,316,897 596,055 468,899 581,138 687,465
78 Meru 10,013,235 3,661,290 13,850,522 17,028,045
79 Migori 2,366,291 3,247,434 4,052,322 6,243,179 5,023,911 7,122,286
80 Mil. C.C 80,000 520,000 2,600,000 206,522,238 199,093,665 190,634,529
81 Mil. L.C. 129,877,604 129,899,260 169,031,114 115,715,525 156,410,790 114,134,311
82 Molo 9,389,786 21,536,895 25,811,843 4,198,040 4,367,220 3,646,814
83 Mombasa 33,923,326 66,205,557 102,964,098 61,749,362 59,772,375 58,033,637
84 Moyale 1,274,586 1,816,435 2,410,255 369,354 304,556 298,991
85 Mpeketoni 743,856 1,061,342 - 431,307 158,925 -
86 Mukurweini 1,594,323 2,218,513 1,156,557 883,154 676,581 716,221
87 Mumias 4,040,482 5,327,858 2,488,519 2,895,115 2,869,105 1,737,558
88 Muranga 6,340,812 4,832,802 6,902,223 9,186,998 8,602,905 7,229,229
89 Mutomo 3,095,079 3,352,217 2,981,476 650,574 500,997 593,628
90 Mwingi 4,877,336 6,566,737 11,150,133 2,207,167 1,710,236 1,573,638
91 Naivasha 33,966,687 41,805,104 61,212,800 14,591,885 9,605,610 14,539,206
92 Nakuru 22,184,261 16,369,036 24,046,084 22,726,943 22,355,826 28,851,291
93 Nanyuki 14,897,084 14,788,321 11,546,110 4,612,873 2,898,544 3,130,606
94 Narok 5,286,075 5,329,881 9,765,054 6,193,519 3,170,340 4,404,495
95 Ndhiwa 829,761 694,336 2,151,095 1,328,755 1,730,485 1,223,844
96 Ngong 15,756,768 8,569,020 - 5,101,350 1,036,553 -
97 Nkubu 7,354,839 971,816 1,551,088 2,449,356 870,204 795,836
98 Nyahururu 7,849,929 10,677,387 23,530,552 8,389,036 5,101,200 4,443,069
99 Nyamira 5,082,021 5,299,731 8,579,033 2,714,409 2,629,904 2,527,181
100 Nyando 2,485,839 3,126,120 7,074,850 1,796,635 1,615,170 1,820,863
101 Nyeri 10,643,674 35,073,522 16,749,132 17,115,040 16,844,675 17,986,595
102 Ogembo 12,580,851 1,532,880 584,934 2,703,544 1,126,831 468,692
103 Othaya 2,339,322 1,737,763 3,054,680 1,387,576 1,005,648 493,910
104 Oyugis 4,082,668 4,426,304 5,663,967 2,838,215 2,396,587 2,151,366
105 Rongo 2,490,129 4,077,292 3,417,998 4,203,708 1,505,158 3,144,543
106 Runyenjes 3,761,788 1,794,596 3,019,769 1,453,694 1,336,817 1,336,992
107 Shanzu 29,885,351 24,412,879 - - - -
108 Siakago 3,058,522 3,040,412 3,762,231 2,002,942 1,239,950 915,748
109 Siaya 2,489,969 3,389,389 4,927,192 3,039,357 2,277,442 2,058,199
110 Sirisia 4,193,784 3,730,557 6,467,970 427,305 274,654 288,179
111 Sotik 3,977,554 2,885,104 5,302,230 2,322,973 1,372,616 2,625,047
112 Tamu 1,676,407 769,573 1,773,782 892,998 260,953 738,720
113 Taveta 4,754,867 4,600,148 5,038,766 472,942 168,919 406,773
114 Tawa 1,351,754 1,604,654 2,422,012 1,944,370 2,409,338 1,970,590
115 Thika 31,900,353 33,143,576 39,643,987 23,436,534 17,900,708 17,709,630
116 Tigania 7,981,440 9,919,587 10,767,204 1,616,252 931,181 1,807,193
117 Ukwala 3,797,641 2,461,060 2,514,596 1,216,950 784,862 851,599
118 Vihiga 5,731,901 10,344,780 4,844,569 2,148,587 1,923,706 1,916,425
119 Voi 11,830,405 12,444,948 11,595,198 4,938,696 4,366,409 4,029,983
120 Wajir 5,227,610 2,972,097 2,229,497 1,444,239 494,492 392,958
121 Wanguru 8,226,145 6,288,875 10,113,054 2,688,943 1,857,618 1,668,307
122 Webuye 6,394,519 9,706,710 10,175,974 2,263,641 2,095,378 1,698,989
123 Winam 5,058,975 4,712,062 4,321,772 1,995,393 1,919,529 2,378,291
124 Wundanyi 5,265,966 3,180,156 4,388,097 499,629 275,745 750,928

Total 1,129,476,603 1,125,429,138 1,454,644,926 954,904,031 846,724,458 819,008,800
9.7 Court Deposits
Deposits have in the past been an issue of major financial management concern. Streamlining
the management of these deposits and funds held in trust is core to the Judiciary’s
transparency and accountability agenda. Therefore, the Judiciary has made the necessary
arrangements to ensure a robust, efficient and effective deposit management system is in
place across all courts and the headquarters. Reconciliation of deposits in the Judiciary is an
ongoing exercise to ensure that outstanding deposits are reconciled to the bank balances.
The process of refunding the deposits has been improved and complaints about delays in
payment have reduced. This is as a result of decentralization of deposit refunds to all court
stations.
By June 30, 2018, the Judiciary held court deposits and other funds held in trust for third
parties amounting to KShs. 5,126,896,135. This was an increase from the KShs 4,367,834,191
that was held at the end of FY 2016/17. Court deposit includes funds retained for construction
projects. The funds are refundable as and when court orders are issued or after six months
liability period for retention monies. Table 9.11 details the amount of deposits held by court
stations at the end of FY 2017-18.
Table 9.11: Court deposits held by court stations
S/No Station Name Balance B/F Collections Payments Balance C/F

KShs KShs KShs KShs
1 Baricho 6,390,220 4,930,000 5,896,000 5,424,220
2 Bomet 8,947,775 5,146,182 3,779,500 10,314,457
3 Bondo 1,634,050 2,257,725 1,741,225 2,150,550
4 Bungoma 27,890,530 10,332,388 12,458,125 25,764,793
5 Busia 17,198,530 14,252,255 12,468,443 18,982,342
6 Butali 4,220,227 2,362,091 2,634,416 3,947,902
7 Butere 1,725,209 1,891,021 1,770,030 1,846,200
8 Chuka 6,758,615 9,963,525 836,900 15,885,240
9 COA (Nairobi) 235,062,269 471,801,137 139,243,284 567,620,122
10 Eldama Ravine 10,449,605 6,228,000 5,382,500 11,295,105
11 Eldoret 64,063,914 32,011,341 27,614,268 68,460,987
12 Embu 30,932,457 19,044,961 22,921,020 27,056,398
13 Engineer 7,839,030 12,059,465 6,651,500 13,246,995
14 Garissa 23,392,050 18,674,034 23,019,097 19,046,987
15 Garsen 956,430 3,214,146 1,038,241 3,132,335
16 Gatundu 9,660,637 11,427,550 7,832,050 13,256,137
17 Gichugu 3,703,326 4,166,500 4,257,937 3,611,889
18 Githongo 605,475 2,297,000 1,745,000 1,157,475
19 Githunguri 3,182,334 4,914,500 4,152,000 3,944,834
20 Hamisi 1,940,330 1,867,500 1,580,900 2,226,930
21 Hola 734,670 142,000 117,450 759,220
22 Homa Bay 7,737,817 10,964,634 4,318,995 14,383,456
23 Isiolo 13,439,350 14,160,095 9,017,754 18,581,691
24 Iten 4,543,501 2,860,000 1,843,010 5,560,491
25 JKIA 7,764,500 4,589,675 4,417,675 7,936,500
KShs KShs KShs KShs
26 Kabarnet 1,344,000 13,323,860 12,850,833 1,817,027
27 Kajiado 14,365,380 8,561,150 10,951,324 11,975,206
28 Kakamega 17,346,880 30,368,566 19,550,547 28,164,899
29 Kakuma 2,476,000 420,000 1,529,000 1,367,000
30 Kaloleni 1,599,135 1,008,000 663,000 1,944,135
31 Kandara 13,187,313 7,564,836 5,749,336 15,002,813
32 Kangema 3,753,067 3,955,500 4,410,000 3,298,567
33 Kangundo 11,783,558 6,841,500 9,990,576 8,634,482
34 Kapenguria 3,338,450 5,525,821 4,844,186 4,020,085
35 Kapsabet 8,440,858 4,422,249 3,430,201 9,432,906
36 Karatina 6,478,000 4,437,047 3,826,500 7,088,547
37 Kehancha 2,245,500 5,125,500 3,484,517 3,886,483
38 Kericho 23,222,158 10,447,961 9,158,920 24,511,199
39 Keroka 1,988,791 3,370,575 3,353,500 2,005,866
40 Kerugoya 20,284,450 7,899,815 14,764,251 13,420,014
41 Kiambu 60,262,016 55,916,250 39,050,798 77,127,468
42 Kibera 227,370,284 64,801,144 61,033,445 231,137,983
43 Kigumo 9,883,977 8,273,089 7,116,804 11,040,262
44 Kikuyu 18,636,139 18,510,433 15,650,722 21,495,850
45 Kilgoris 4,904,030 7,217,460 3,054,249 9,067,241
46 Kilifi 16,897,443 7,265,554 7,202,744 16,960,253
47 Kilungu 8,943,048 5,919,359 11,205,081 3,657,326
48 Kimilili 5,848,000 3,055,832 3,417,871 5,485,961
49 Kisii 28,598,791 15,047,387 6,875,539 36,770,639
50 Kisumu 22,590,268 57,054,460 39,102,462 40,542,266
51 Kitale 19,772,830 16,954,703 14,074,843 22,652,690
52 Kithimani 11,893,742 6,233,500 6,152,500 11,974,742
53 Kitui 24,500,995 19,472,221 8,543,957 35,429,259
54 Kwale 19,232,796 16,997,388 9,951,488 26,278,696
55 Kyuso 806,000 1,302,000 1,284,000 824,000
56 Lamu 8,976,813 1,026,814 781,814 9,221,813
57 Limuru 12,761,325 30,917,881 9,439,500 34,239,706
58 Lodwar 2,965,700 5,307,000 4,112,000 4,160,700
59 Loitokitok 515,000 1,092,500 577,500 1,030,000
60 Machakos 67,467,053 24,726,672 20,836,516 71,357,209
61 Makadara 291,537,875 76,770,500 74,489,327 293,819,049
62 Makindu 9,472,684 2,720,000 1,985,162 10,207,522
63 Makueni 3,188,825 4,233,040 3,845,000 3,576,865
64 Malindi 60,354,136 40,296,470 25,045,823 75,604,783
65 Mandera 1,396,337 4,120,235 2,518,220 2,998,352
66 Mararal 3,021,227 3,310,000 3,578,500 2,752,727
67 Mariakani 10,256,940 6,594,068 5,170,098 11,680,910
68 Marimanti 2,149,500 2,208,000 1,792,000 2,565,500
69 Marsabit 2,764,837 6,024,840 3,158,130 5,631,547
70 Maseno 4,580,100 2,772,484 2,548,000 4,804,584
71 Maua 1,500,000 15,725,885 15,771,088 1,454,797
72 Mavoko 60,040,291 17,567,400 21,669,912 55,937,779
73 Mbita 2,223,000 2,369,000 1,476,000 3,116,000
KShs KShs KShs KShs
74 Meru 51,828,847 18,812,705 20,683,126 49,958,426
75 Migori 5,280,062 4,830,784 4,583,268 5,527,578
76 Milimani C.C 241,624,596 72,801,431 49,503,158 264,922,870
77 Milimani L.C 1,443,414,663 552,285,523 386,507,992 1,609,192,194
78 Molo 20,189,739 6,988,606 10,281,512 16,896,833
79 Mombasa 201,539,589 102,422,283 122,716,271 181,245,601
80 Moyale 1,183,225 3,502,020 4,739,020 53,775
81 Mpeketoni 395,000 775,075 408,575 761,500
82 Mukurweini 775,500 1,205,823 952,823 1,028,500
83 Mumias 6,855,544 5,504,878 5,889,006 6,471,417
84 Muranga 32,152,093 24,566,001 11,004,053 45,714,041
85 Mutomo 1,780,698 1,795,500 1,835,500 1,740,698
86 Mwingi 5,329,251 3,911,500 2,678,500 6,562,251
87 Naivasha 84,206,173 32,527,078 26,196,743 90,536,508
88 Nakuru 226,238,626 60,383,735 48,825,683 237,796,678
89 Nanyuki 19,954,200 18,383,245 13,957,745 24,379,700
90 Narok 18,875,146 14,052,132 12,072,402 20,854,876
91 Ndhiwa 1,171,605 1,877,616 3,049,221
92 Ngong 13,564,700 18,129,000 9,477,000 22,216,700
93 Nkubu 9,907,824 3,605,000 3,288,500 10,224,324
94 Nyahururu 24,579,935 11,494,187 11,121,368 24,952,754
95 Nyamira 9,252,862 10,742,362 3,040,940 16,954,284
96 Nyando 2,592,000 1,469,500 1,489,784 2,571,716
97 Nyeri 45,962,130 18,534,571 21,415,874 43,080,827
98 Ogembo 7,955,070 7,633,000 6,467,727 9,120,343
99 Othaya 1,921,312 2,324,000 2,597,000 1,648,312
100 Oyugis 3,020,200 2,185,500 2,220,500 2,985,200
101 Rongo 1,184,925 1,156,600 1,040,250 1,301,275
102 Runyenjes 2,015,200 2,499,500 1,853,200 2,661,500
103 Shanzu 24,355,030 45,859,135 14,239,050 55,975,115
104 Siakago 6,671,084 5,172,910 2,934,610 8,909,384
105 Siaya 6,977,161 5,283,324 5,588,523 6,671,961
106 Sirisia 2,103,994 2,069,226 1,236,531 2,936,689
107 Sotik 3,174,045 467,500 523,000 3,118,545
108 Tamu 652,000 1,500,000 1,524,000 628,000
109 Taveta 1,778,125 374,000 336,000 1,816,125
110 Tawa 3,188,825 1,271,000 401,000 4,058,825
111 Thika 109,373,029 57,408,305 45,590,365 121,190,969
112 Tigania 15,213,003 4,513,500 5,248,500 14,478,003
113 Ukwala 1,147,366 1,949,314 2,209,918 886,762
114 Vihiga 3,431,391 4,278,650 2,916,650 4,793,391
115 Voi 15,311,355 7,638,540 8,956,841 13,993,054
116 Wajir 1,553,000 5,511,852 4,736,180 2,328,672
117 Wanguru 10,425,834 6,736,000 9,192,000 7,969,834
118 Webuye 10,123,348 4,826,010 5,010,424 9,938,934
119 Winam 7,791,892 10,688,094 3,699,126 14,780,859
120 Wundanyi 1,874,600 1,763,900 2,286,800 1,351,700
Total 4,367,834,190 2,510,344,089 1,751,282,142 5,126,896,137
9.8 Automation of revenue, expenditure and deposits management
The Judiciary’s Strategic Plan 2014-2018 stipulates that judicial reforms seek to improve
efficiency, effectiveness and prudence in the utilization of available and acquired resources
to bridge the resource gap. The Judiciary will achieve higher accountability levels through
acquisition of best practices, and by eliminating bottlenecks in its systems and processes. A
key element of this is to improve the financial management system by embracing technology.
This has also been affirmed in Chapter 5 of the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (SJT)
blueprint. An automated financial system (JFMIS) was rolled out in all court stations.
The system aided in revenue, deposits and expenditure management and reduced losses
occasioned by weak systems in courts. In addition, the Judiciary has implemented Q-pay
services which is an on-line payment platform (Electronic Funds Transfer) provided by
Kenya Commercial Bank. Q-pay has been implemented in 59 court stations. The platform
allows users to make secure online payments.
9.9 Operationalization of Judiciary Fund
Section 173 of the Constitution establishes the Judiciary Fund to be administered by the
Chief Registrar of the Judiciary. The objectives of the Fund are to safeguard the financial
independence of the Judiciary, ensure accountability of funds allocated and ensure that the
Judiciary has adequate resources for its functions. Further, sub-article 5 requires Parliament
to enact legislation to provide for regulation of the Fund. The Judiciary Fund Act 2016 was
assented to in May 2016 with a commencement date of 12th June 2016. The Act in Section 14
provides for the Chief Justice to make regulations for the proper management of the fund.
Consequently, Judiciary Fund Regulations that were developed through a consultative
process were gazetted on May 31, 2018. By the end of the period under review, the regulations
were awaiting parliamentary approval to commence operations.
9.10 Financial Challenges
1. Insufficient resources
The Judiciary has continued to receive low funding over the years. This has affected
the development and completion of physical infrastructural especially construction
of courts in sub-counties and counties, digitization of judiciary processes through
full roll out of the ICT infrastructure, human resource capacity improvement
especially the hiring of optimal number of judges and magistrates and continuous
education, and sufficient finances for the recurrent budget.
2. Lands Registration
Lack of land ownership documents in some courts has hampered the undertaking
of infrastructural projects.
Chapter 10
THE STATE OF THE AGENCIES
AND COLLABORATION IN THE
JUSTICE SECTOR
THE STATE OF THE AGENCIES
AND COLLABORATION IN THE
JUSTICE SECTOR
10.0 Introduction
T
he NCAJ is established under Section 34 of the Judicial Service Act (Cap 185B). It is a
high-level policymaking, implementation and oversight coordinating mechanism as
reflected in its membership that is composed of State and Non-State Actors from the
justice sector.
Inter-agency coordination in the justice sector is the core mandate of the NCAJ. The
coordination for the reporting period focused on improvement of service delivery and
institutional strengthening through collaboration. The agencies under NCAJ realised great
achievements on service delivery and improved access to justice. This is atested by various
surveys and statistics in this report that give an empirical view of the factors affecting access
to justice. The chapter also provides trends reported as well as policy and legislative initiatives
that will affect the admininistration of justice. In summary, the mandate of the NCAJ is to
ensure a coordinated, efficient, effective and consultative approach in the administration in
justice and reform of the justice system.
The NCAJ was formally launched on 11th August 2011, and has so far held 19 Council meetings.
NCAJ has witnessed tremendous growth programmatically, institutionally and financially.
Through enhanced fundraising strategies by the Secretariat, the NCAJ budget has increased
significantly, from Ksh. 25 million annually to an average of 200 million from both GoK
and development partners. Donor confidence in NCAJ has increased steadily, which is
evidenced both by the fact that a number of donors have supported the institution including
GIZ, IDLO, World Bank; and also that, during the review period, NCAJ was appointed the
coordinating institution for the Program on Legal Aid and Empowerment Delivery (PLEAD)
– a five-year Euro 34 million grant for the Kenya Justice System financed by the European
Union (EU) in partnership with UNODC and UNDP.
For the last two years, the World Bank invested about Kshs. 100 million through the Judiciary
Performance Improvement Programme (JPIP) Small Grants Programme that enabled the full
operationalization of 128 Court Users Committees (CuCs) countrywide. These funds were
been used for holding public Open Days, court improvements, purchase of equipment, CuC
meetings and trainings, all geared towards access to justice.
The NCAJ occupies a unique and strategic place in the administration of justice in Kenya.
It provides the singular most important institutional platform for achieving justice sector-
wide reform. In the Sustaining Judiciary Transformation (2017 – 2021), the Judiciary aims at
fully institutionalizing NCAJ and strengthening it with its own fully-fledged secretariat and
office space during the review perion. Premises for the secretariat were identified and the
offices were unveiled by the Chief Justice
The NCAJ carries out its core mandate through the 7 NCAJ Committees that have a general
mandate to review and propose legislative and policy changes for the effective administration
of justice. In this regard, the NCAJ has developed numerous justice sector Bills and
developed several policies. These include the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, Handbook on
Combating Illicit Trade, and the Sentencing Policy Guidelines. The Committees are currently
undertaking various processes that are meant to positively impact on the administration of
justice.
10.1 BAIL AND BOND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Activities and Achievements
The Committee was established in July 2015 to oversee, monitor and evaluate implementation
of the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines, and Recommendations of the Taskforce on Bail and
Bond. The Chief Justice extended the Committee’s tenure for a period of 1 year to June 2019.
During the FY 2017/18, the Committee held several consultative forums to entrench the
guidelines and build consensus on common issues by stakeholders; undertook sensitization
and awareness programs targeting judges and other judicial officers, prosecutors, the police,
and other officers in the criminal justice sector.
A survey to establish level of awareness and usage of the Policy Guidelines among advocates
and prosecuting counsels was also undertaken. The survey was useful in identifying areas
requiring attention of the Committee and effective outreach approaches. The committee
also developed various IEC materials including Bail and Bond Charters, illustrative posters,
and FAQ Brochures, all of which were distributed to the public. The Committee also initiated
a process of developing a legislative proposal to streamline the application of bail and bond
by the police and courts.
10.2 NCAJ SPECIAL TASKFORCE ON CHILDREN MATTERS
The Judiciary Special Task force on Children has conducted several service weeks since
2016 in order to reduce backlog of children cases in court. During the service weeks, the
Judiciary, together with the court user’s committees (CUCs), set one week aside to conduct
children matters with the aim of reducing back log of children cases in court. In line with
this, November of every year has been declared s service week for children. With the support
of the US Embassy and the International Development Law Organization, special service
weeks in various courts were conducted throughout the year.
Colour coding of children’s files using white colour has continuously been encouraged so
as to identify children’s files when stored in the registry or when matters are being heard.
The task force conducted circuit visits on children institutions and holding facilities,
which include: children remand homes, rehabilitation schools, rescue centres, reception
centres, probation hostels, Borstals and women’s Prison children wing, Child Protection
Units (CPUs), children’s court. The purpose of these visits was to look at the infrastructure,
programmes, and pending matters, among other issues and make recommendation on the
same
The Taskforce also developed a Protection and Care (P &C) form (Form 1) to be used in court
for children in need of care and protection, which replaced charge sheets that were used
previously. In order to allow children to testify freely, the Taskforce introduced witness
protection boxes in children’s court. For instance, Makadara court introduced services such
as day care unit for children, counseling services, lunch for children’s, and play therapy.
The Taskforce took part in developing the following new pieces of proposed legislation;
1. Children Bill 2018 – provided membership to the national steering committee and
technical support through the entire process. There were regional consultations across
the country in regions namely central, upper and lower Eastern, Western, North
Eastern, Coast, North and South Rift.
2. Through Care Guidelines 2013, recommendations were made which outlined

the Juvenile Justice System that a child goes through from the moment they are
apprehended, and committed to the institution until they exit.
The following challenges were experienced during the period under review:-
1. Inadequate number of prosecutors in Courts.
2. Court, parties and prosecutors did not have adequate notice of service week, making
it difficult to bring forward case dates and obtain parties/witnesses who often travel
large distances.
3. Little awareness of plea-bargaining.
4. Court Users Committees (CUC) had not convened legal aid committees.
5. The bulk of Children cases involved defilement.
6. Lack of legal representation for the children in Court, both for victims and witnesses
7. In some courts children are held together with adult remandees.
8. Poor living conditions in some remand homes
9. Inadequate funding. Some Police officers reported to have used their own money to
pay for water and electricity, and build a Child and Gender Unit Desk.
10. Officers are untrained on children’s matters.
11. Children officers were not made aware of service week.
12. Understaffing at the police stations.
13. Children Institutions receive little funding from the Government for the children’s
medical care. Children at some of the remand homes did not have any shoes on.
14. Some magistrates/ courts do not understand the nature of children matters and end
up committing children to institutions where the children cannot attend school.
15. Some courts do not also understand the purpose of the remand, as a result will commit
underage children to the remand home.
The Taskforce made the following recommendations
1. There is need for managers of rehabilitation school to link with neighbouring schools
so that children can be attending schools at the locality, as in the case of Kisumu Boys
Rehabilitation School.
2. There should be timely release of funds for maintenance of building, purchase of beds
and beddings and kitchen utensil plus cooking sufurias.
3. Staffing/cadres should be commensurate with the needs of the institutions.
4. There should be adequate funds to carry out home tracing and reintegration.
5. There should be strong collaboration amongst all the stakeholders to ensure that
children cases are fast tracked.
6. Build a Children Remand Facility in Machakos and Makueni counties as well as a Child
Protection Unit (CPU) in every police station.
7. Recruitment of prosecutors to expedite the handling of children’s matters.
8. Allocation of specific budget for children at every police station
9. Training of personnel (magistrates, police officers, prosecution) on children matters.
10. Collaboration with Court User Committees (CUCs) and local leadership (e.g. chiefs) to
create awareness and facilitate service week.
11. Greater partnership with County Government to provide funding to cater for the best
interests of the child (medical care, remand/CPU, food supplies).
12. Provision of psychosocial support for child victims and offenders at all stages in the
justice system.
13. Civic education and awareness creation for parents and community especially on the
best interest of the child, namely in cases of sexual abuse and children with disabilities.
14. Creation of a separate Children’s Register at every court and police station.
15. Mandatory use of Case and Protectionform in dealing with cases of children in need of
care and protection.
16. Development and implementation of a policy to ensure children’s institutions receive

a complete copy of the child’s file upon committal.
10.3 CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COMMITTEE
The National Council on Administration of Justice Committee on Criminal Justice Reform

(NCCJR) was established to lead the review and reform of the criminal justice system and
to oversee the full implementation of the audit report. The Committee comprises of key
players in the criminal justice system including the police, courts, prosecution, probation
officers, prisons officers, and advocates. The mandate of the Committee entails a review of
the criminal justice system and make recommendations for a better functioning criminal
justice system and ensure that it conforms to the dictates of the Constitution. The committee
also identify barriers that impede the efficient running of the system and areas where
inter-agency corporation and corroboration may make the criminal system more efficient,
reviewing especialy penal laws. The activities undertaken by the Committee during the
review period were as follows:
1. The Committee held various sensitization meetings with actors in the Criminal Justice
System. These included meetings with: the Attorney General, the Forensic Pathologists,
ICJ, KNCHR, KHRC, Mathari Mental Hospital supervisor, Kenya Defence Forces.
2. The Committee participated in validation of theInternational Commission of Jurists

(ICJ) Kenya’s research on the law and policy on the petty offences and practices
affecting populations at the national level as well as those in Kisumu, Mombasa and
Nairobi counties. This research by ICJ Kenya was vital to the Committees objective to
decriminalise and reclassify petty offences. This report identified the gaps in legislative
and policy frameworks on petty offences and practices that result in human rights
abuses. The report further identified the offences that the Committee should consider
for reclassifying or decriminalisation.
3. The Committee trained members on the various legislation and international instruments
that relate to incarceration and the minimum requirements of a detention facility.
4. The Committee has developed a prisons assessment tool, for use in reference of relevant
law, and the shortcomings in detention facilities detailed.
10.4 COURT USERS COMMITTEE (CUC) PROGRAM
The Court Users Committee are stakeholders’ forum that convene at every court station.
They are further established at different levels to ensure an accountable, coordinated,
efficient, effective and consultative approach in the delivery of justice.
These levels include:
i. The High Court Station
ii. The Magistrate Court Station
iii. Special Courts (Environment and Land Court, Employment and Labor Relations
Court, Children’s Court, County Municipal Courts, Milimani Commercial Court,
Kadhis Court, and Mobile Courts);
iv. Tribunals;
v. The County
During the reporting period, the NCAJ, under the CUCs program was actively involved in
enhancing the capacity of CUCs in the various stations. The Special Working group for CUCs,
which sits at the National level, reviewed the CUC Guidelines. The guidelines have been in
existence since 2013 and required updating. The committee also facilitated targeted CUC
workshops in Nairobi to enhance synergies in the criminal justice sector. The workshops
addressed various concerns that were raised from the court stations. The table shows the
activities that were undertaken during the report period by the various CUC
Table 10.1: Summary on CUC activities undertaken 2017/2018
ACTIVITY Number
CUC Meetings 88
ICT Equipment including computers for registry and customer 64
care desks, photocopying machines, power back ups etc.
Training of chiefs, IO, CO, CUC members etc. on various acts 56
through workshops
Works including partitioning, rehabilitations, construction 45
Furniture including chairs, workstations, filing cabinets, 32
benches etc.
Purchase and installation of Water tank 21
Witness expenses 21
Visits to prisons/Remand homes/Schools 19
Stationery and office supplies including printing papers, 11
toners, cartridges and furnishing children rooms
Purchase and installation of Solar panels 10
Legal aid clinics, service week and RRI 6
Signage 5
PA System and Bulk SMS system 4
CSO project 3
Service charter and Grey Books 3
Interpreter expenses 2
Canvas tent to be used as makeshift courts 1
Electrical works 1
Metal detectors 1
Radio talk shows 1
The continued support of CUCs through the JPIP funding under its small grant program which
saw 105 CUCs out of 128 get direct funding for their activities enumerated in their individual
proposals. The funding has seen improvements in access to justice by court users answering
to the key mandate of the NCAJ. Apart from the aforementioned the NCAJ has had greater
impact from the segments of CUC. Particularly, the Kisumu CUC and the Business Court
Users Committee at Milimani both of which have had secretariat support through IDLO. The
key milestones for these CUCs are reported below.
Reports from Selected CUCS
The NCAJ has a vibrant CUC in Kisumu and its environs where there is secretariat support
through the auspices of IDLO. Consequently, the Kisumu Station CUC has had these notable
achievements geared towards stakeholder participation and inclusion.
Restructuring the CUC: The Kisumu Law Courts and the High Court Kisumu have changed the
composition and structure of CUCs to ensure a thorough and vibrant approach in addressing
matters affecting all courts users, and with an overall goal to promote access to justice and
enhance justice delivery. This was borne out of need to accommodate the many actors and
users of the Kisumu Courts as well as to ensure that the new divisions now in existence, such
as the Environment and Land, Employment and Labour Relations and family are represented.
The separation is done thematically. Therefore, in addition to having a Kisumu County CUC
and the Station CUC, there is now the Employment and Labour CUC, the Environment and
Lands CUC, the Criminal Division CUC and the Family Division CUC.
Partnerships and inclusion: where there has been a move to ensure that stakeholders involved
in particular interests and values among the courts users have been incorporated into the
CUCs. These partnerships include the Kisumu County Gender Technical Working Group,
the Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya Forests Service, National Environmental Management
Authority and the Women Concern Centre. These partnerships have in turn reinforced the
image and impact of CUCs on their focus areas.
Capacity Building: Kisumu CUCs have undertook several capacity building activities focused
on topical issues of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Sexual and Gender Based Violence,
the Law of Succession in light of the rights against disinheritance of widows, orphans
and vulnerable children, Alcoholic Drinks Act, anti-corruption laws, children rights and
reproductive health. The target groups have included local area administrators such as
chiefs, deputy county commissioners and elders, key community based organizations and
civil society groups, religious leaders, prison in-mates, widows and the general public. This
is aimed at reduction in reported cases on abuse and violations.
An inmate at Kibos Maximum Prison addressing the Kisumu CUC members on 29th May 2018
The Commercial and Tax Division of the High Court convened its quarterly Business Court
User Committee (BCUC). This is a specialized CUCs currently at the National level. The BCUC
was established in 2015 as a special CUC under the aegis of the NCAJ. The BCUC handles
issues affecting business organizations that arise from the Commercial and Tax Division. The
BCUC provides a platform for the public, the business community, and other stakeholders,
to understand the processes and systems of the Judiciary.
In 2018, The Commercial and Tax Division with the support of International Development
Law Organisation (IDLO) was able to establish its secretariat. This has led to several
achievements for the BCUC as follows:
Capacity building and training for judges: The Judges of the Division held two trainings. The
firs one was on July 2017 on the matters courtesy of the Association of Kenya Insurers, Kenya
Association of Manufacturers and PricewaterhouseCoopers especially in the application of
the law and development of jurisprudence. The second one was held in January 2018 on the
Movable Property Security Rights Act 2017, organized by the Kenya Bankers Association.
BCUC Meetings: The BCUC had meetings that were well attended with representation from
the Judges and Deputy Registrars of the Commercial and Tax Division, Business Member
Associations such as Kenya Private Sector Alliance, Kenya Association of Manufacturers,
Association of Kenya Insurers, The Law Society of Kenya, Kenya Bankers Association,
Petroleum Institute of East Africa, Retail Traders Association of Kenya, Kenya Copyrights
Board, IBM Research and International Development Law Organization The meetings
focused on:
• Automation projects undertaken by the Judiciary through the Commercial and Tax
Division viz E-filing and E-payment, Case Management and Transcription
• Clearing of case Backlog
• Emerging areas of Law and need for Capacity Building/ Trainings
• Information sharing and outreach to members
• The Court Annexed Mediation in the Commercial and Tax Division.
The Former BCUC Chairperson, Hon. Mr Justice Fred Ochieng presiding a BCUC Meeting.
The BCUC members attended and presented the strides that each of their sectors had made in
using Alternative Dispute Resolution during the ADR Stakeholder forum that was organised
by the Judiciary ADR Taskforce and the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration
(NCIA) with the support of IDLO. The National Stakeholder Forum on Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) under the theme Cultivating a Robust, Coordinated ADR Framework in
Kenya Towards Sustained Economic Growth and Access to Justice took place on April 12th
and 13th, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya.
During an ADR Stakeholder Engagement.
Launch of The Commercial Justice Sector Project and showcase of the various ICT Initiatives
The Hon. the Chief Justice Hon. Justice David Maraga launched the Commercial Justice
Project on the 17th May 2018. The launch showcased the Commercial Court Automation
project components: e-filing, e-payment and case tracking system, the Court Annexed
Mediation and The Business Court User Committee. This Project seeks to strengthen Kenya’s
business climate through improvement of court structures and processes for commercial
matters; enhance electronic case management systems for commercial cases; and availing
alternative dispute resolution methods for commercial matters .
(L-R) Enid Muthoni- Regional Manager, Africa, IDLO, Dr. Chris Kiptoo- Principal Secretary State Department for Trade,
Hon. Mr. Chief Justice David Maraga, Hon. Ambassador Frans Makken- Netherlands Embassy, Hon. Lady Justice Lydia
Achode – Principal Judge of the High Court and Hon. Mr. Justice William Ouko – President of the Court of Appeal during
the launch of the Commercial Justice Sector Reforms on 17th May 2018.
10.5 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Office of the Attorney General is established under Article 156 of the Constitution of
Kenya and governed by the Office of the Attorney General Act No. 49 of 2012. The duties
of the Office are outlined in Executive Order No. 1 of 2018. The mandate of the Office of
the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (OAG &OOJ) is to provide legal advice
to the Government, represent the National Government in court civil proceedings and
matters before foreign courts and tribunals; promote the rule of law and protect public
interest; promote and protect human rights; promote good governance, transparency,
accountability, ethics and integrity; and facilitate implementation of the Constitution. The
office further spearheads policy, legal and institutional reforms in the administration of
justice, electoral reforms, legal education and legal profession; provide national integration
services for businesses, marriages and societies; act as public trustee; and enhance access to
justice through the provision of legal aid. The activities and Achievements in the Office of the
Attorney General are given in Table 10.2. During the reporting period, the Office undertook
various activities as listed below:
Table 10.2 : Activities undertaken by Office of the Attorney General.
NO. OUTCOME KEY ACTIVITIES KEY ACHIEVEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD

2017/18
1 Constitution of Draft Bills for the harmonization 10 Bills finalized – to be provided by Kenya
Kenya effectively of existing Laws with the Law Reform Commission
implemented Constitution
Draft 10 other prioritized bills 10 Bills finalized – to be provided by Kenya
Law Reform Commission
Conduct civic education in 5 Conducted civic education in Kericho, Bomet,
counties Uasin Gishu, Baringo and Isiolo where 2900
opinion leaders were sensitized
Review the Victim Protection Act Victim Protection Act under review
Operationalize the Victim Victim Protection Board published in the
Protection Board Kenya gazette
Develop Victims’ Rights Charter Victims’ Rights Charter finalized in April 2018
awaiting launch
2 Legislative and Facilitate the development Bribery Act, Access to Information Act,
Policy framework of Anti-Corruption Laws Whistle Blower Protection Bill, and Anti-
for the fight (Amendment) Bill Corruption Law (Amendment) Bill developed
against corruption Facilitate implementation of National Ethics Anti-Corruption Policy
strengthened the Task Force Report on the finalized
legal policy and institutional
framework for the fight against
corruption in Kenya
3 Access to justice Establish and operationalize the Legal Aid Board published in the Kenya
enhanced Legal Aid Board gazette and members inducted
Provide legal aid to indigent 13000 persons provided with legal aid in 5
persons pilot locations
Map out legal aid providers in 113 legal aid providers identified during the
Kenya exercise and a database created
2017/18
4 Human rights Coordinate the formulation of a Draft National Policy on public participation
and fundamental Draft National Policy on Public developed and the Public Participation Bill,
freedoms fulfilled Participation Bill 2018 is currently before the Senate.
Coordinate the formulation of a Stakeholder consultations undertaken.
Draft National Policy Action Plan
on business and human rights Action plan in the process of being drafted.
Draft Whistle Blower Protection Whistle Blower Protection Bill drafted and is
Bill currently before the Cabinet.
5 Electoral and political Facilitate legal and institutional
processes reformed reforms of the electoral process
To promote respect Represent the Government in 1027 cases filed against the Attorney General
for rule of law and cases filed against the Attorney finalized.
protection o public General
interest Provide legal advice and opinions Opinion and legal advise being given within
to MDCAs within 3 days upon 3 days
receipt of necessary documents
6 Provide legal advice to MDAs Legal advice given within 5 days
on Bilateral, Regional and
International Law matters within
7 days
Undertake to defend Represented the Government of Kenya in
the Republic of Kenya in various matters (see annex)
International Arbitration and
litigation matters
Develop a Mutual Legal Mutual Legal Assistance Act enacted
Assistance Bill
Compliance with Reduce time taken to draw final Time reduced to 15 days
trusteeship services accounts of Estates from an
enhanced average of 20 to 15 days
Access to National Draft rules for the Hindu, Islamic Marriage (Muslim Marriage) Rules published
Registration services and Customary Law Marriages in the Kenya gazette
enhanced
7 To promote discipline Reduced number of days taken Days reduced to 3
and competence in to file charges at the Disciplinary
the legal profession Tribunal from 4 to 3
Digitize complaints files 1225 files digitized
8 Conduct Dispute Resolution Programs undertaken in 15 Counties
programs in Counties
2017/18
10 Enhanced access Create awareness to the 4
to quality legal public, advocates and other
education stakeholders on legal ethical
issues
Training students on the 1635 students were trained
advocates Training Programme
Increase the number of paralegal 208 paralegal students were trained
professionals
11 Conduct bar examinations for 5526 candidates were examined
lawyers
Gazette qualified candidates 1158 successful candidates gazetted
for admission into the Roll of
Advocates
Nairobi Centre To ensure the start of operations NCIA was operationalised
for International for the Nairobi Centre for
Arbitration International Arbitration (NCIA)
Develop an Alternative Dispute Draft Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy
Resolution Policy developed
Key challenges encountered by the OAG&DOJ in the execution of its mandate and proposed
interventions.
Key challenges encountered include the following:
The OAG and DOJ has had notable achievement over the years. However, various constraints
and challenges hampered effective and efficient service delivery, key among them:
1. High turnover and poor retention of professional staff due to uncompetitive

remuneration.
2. Inadequate funds for training of State Counsel/lawyers in emerging specialized areas
of law.
3. Limited modernization and automation of services hampering of operations in key

departments such as civil litigation, Public Trustee, Legal Advisory and Research
Division and Business Registration Services.
4. Lack of modern functional library to facilitate research.
5. Inadequate motor vehicles to facilitate counsel to travel to courts spread in vast

counties, ultimately affecting the quality of services offered.
6. Inadequate resources to sustain the fight against corruption and to effect fundamental
changes against the culture, behavior, practices and attitudes by Kenya’s towards
corruption; and
7. Lack of awareness by the public hampers effective public participation in Government

projects and programmes.
Proposed interventions
1. Given the unique mandate of OAG&DOJ in the provision of legal services to the
government and the public, there is need to increase budgetary allocation to enable it
fund the following programme.
a. Decentralization of services to the counties
b. Automation of operations
c. Capacity building, policy formulation and implementation, and
d. Operationalization of new institutions
2. Enhance public awareness and participation in line with the principle of good
governance in the Constitution.
3. Create awareness on the use of alternative disputer resolution in order to enhance

cohesion and integration and reduce backlog of cases in the Judiciary and the
associated economic costs.
4. Develop a collaborative framework for MDAs/Counties to enhance information

sharing, service delivery and efficiency.
5. Empower the Administration, Planning and Support Service programme.
10.6 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is (OOPP) the charged with the responsibility
of exercising state powers of prosecutions as provided in Article 157 of the Constitution
and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 2013. This includes; undertaking
criminal prosecutions in subordinate and superior courts, directing investigations, offering
criminal legal opinion to government ministries and departments, processing extradition
and mutual legal requests from both within and outside Kenya, facilitating witness protection
and victim’s participation in criminal justice.
ODPP plays an integral role in the administration of justice. In fulfillment of its constitutional
obligation, ODPP is required to periodically accounts for its performance. Thus, below is a
detailed exposition of the activities, achievements and challenges that the ODPP faced in
the fiscal year 2017/2018.
Achievements of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - FY 2017/18
During the reporting period, the ODPP undertook a number of activities as highlighted under the
following sub-themes:
1. Enhance Access to Justice
The ODPP strives to enhance access to justice through a variety of strategic activities which
included, decentralization of prosecution services, redress of public complaints, enhancing
capacity of prosecutors and focusing on key crimes, which have a multiplier effect such as
corruption. In line with the Constitutional imperative for ODPP as a National Government
organ, to decentralize prosecution services the ODPP continued to improve its presence in
all the 47 Counties of the Republic, as well as all the 121 court stations by deploying more
Prosecutors to serve and thereby ease case backlog. Addressing public complaints either
regarding ODPP services or those of related agencies such as the National Police Service,
is critical to promoting accountability, transparency and ultimately access to justice. In
this regard, the ODPP therefore has a public complaints redress mechanism. The ODPP’s
Complaints and Compliments Section has, since inception in January 2012, processed 14,007
public complaints, including 1,616 complaints in FY 2017/18. ODPP has also adopted the use
of social media platforms to receive complaints and inform the public on actions taken. ODPP
also stepped up its drive towards enhanced capacity development and professionalization
of prosecution services by increasing specialized training of Prosecutors in various thematic
areas.
During the reporting period, combating corruption continued to be a major subject of

national discourse. During the fiscal years of 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 and now 2017/18
ODPP continued to ramp up its contribution to the fight against corruption by prosecuting
the highest number of high profile corruption cases ever in Kenya’s legal history. New cases
filed in courts on anti-corruption involved over KES 2billions. The cases involved senior
national and county governments officials on trial for looting or misappropriation of public
funds. The ODPP continued to deploy the “follow-the-money” and “full-range of the law”
approaches resulting in more cases of economic crimes, abuse of office, money-laundering
and organized crime.
The ODPP also invested in infrastructural development to ensure that the Office is better
placed to serve the citizens. This includes acquisition of additional office space, refurbishing
and equipping of the newly opened sub-county offices.
2. Institutional Reforms and Restructuring
The ODPP’s thematic divisions, sections and units were improved by various leadership
changes and deployment of more Prosecution Counsel. The institution’s Human resource
complement improved by recruiting more new staff of whom 50.9% were Prosecution
Counsel and 49.1% were Central Facilitation Staff. Growth in staff is critical for the ODPP’s
overall commitment towards rendering of improved prosecution services.
Table 1: ODPP Human Resource Capital
Current staffing levels

Total No. of Staff 671 933 946 1021 966
Growth
Source: ODPP records
Table 1: Total Number of Staff
ODPP’s strategic focus on professional skills development continued during the FY 2017/18,
by mounting more inter-agency trainings which not only benefited Prosecutors but also
officers from key partner agencies, including the Judiciary, National Police Service, Ethics
and Anticorruption Commission, Communication Authority, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya
Revenue Authority, Kenya Airports Authority, NEMA, amongst others. These trainings
focused on Trial Advocacy, Active Case Management, Anti-corruption, Money-laundering,
Terrorism, Wildlife Crime, SGBV, Cybercrime and human-trafficking.
3. Professionalization of Prosecution Services:
The ODPP developed tools such for centralized case in-take, daily review of charge sheets
and active case management in line with the existing prosecutorial policies and guidelines.
Prosecutors have been continually sensitized on these issues and case audit operations have
been established. This is in the wider effort to ensure that standards set out in the National
Prosecution Policy are enforced.
4. Promote Inter-Agency Cooperation and International Collaboration:
The ODPP operates within the NCAJ framework state and non-state actors. To foster
collaboration efforts with various agencies, the ODPP developed Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs), MoUs and Reference Manuals/Guides and Digests for internal and inter-
agency capacity building efforts. These tools covered anti-corruption, wildlife crimes,
terrorism, hate-speech, international crimes, piracy, narcotics and SGBV. Moreover, ODPP
improved its regional and international collaboration efforts by hosting various forums of
the East Africa Association of Prosecutors [EAAP] including its Annual General Meeting.
The ODPP also participated in various prosecutorial regional and international conferences/
trainings of the Africa Prosecution Association and International Association of Prosecutors.
It also contributed prosecutors who served in various national delegations to various state
parties’ forums on various international legal instruments of which Kenya is a party to. Part
of ODPP’s collaboration goals is to establish regional prosecutorial networks to enhance
international legal cooperation formal and informal mechanisms.
5. Strengthen Policy and Legislative Frameworks
The ODPP contributed to the development and implementation of a number of criminal

justice sector policies and legislative initiatives. For instance, ODPP contributed to the much
anticipated review of Anticorruption laws including the enactment of the Bribery Act, 2016.
The Office was involved in Inter-agency taskforces including the IDPs Taskforce, Taskforce
on Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, Victims of Crime Board and various NCAJ
technical Committees and CUCs. ODPP contributed to discussions that led to the formation
of the Anti-Corruption High Court Division by Judiciary. During the reporting period, which
partly covered the election period for the 2017 General Elections, the ODPP established an
Elections Offences Prosecution Team with a 24-hour Secretariat which collaborated with
other stakeholders such as the IEBC and the National Police Service in ensuring that these
agencies were in a good state of election preparedness. The ODPP also collaborated with
various justice agencies in the fight against corruption through the Multi-Agency Team
(MAT) framework whose interventions have resulted in expeditious prosecution-guided
investigations of major graft cases and increased both convictions and case conclusion rate
of corruption and economic crimes. Indeed, for the first time corruption cases have been
registered and successfully tried within a year, which is a remarkable achievement.
The ODPP was involved in various law reform initiatives, which include the Access
to Information Act 2016, Anti-Doping Act 2016, Elections Offences Act 2016, Forest
Conservation and Management Act 2016, Legal Aid Act 2016, National Coroners Service
Act 2017, and Prevention of Torture Act 2017. The Office also initiated the development
of Plea-bargaining Rules and Guidelines, Cybercrime Bill 2016, Wildlife Management &
Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2017.
6. Facilitation of Witnesses and Victims of Crime
In realization of the role of victims in the criminal justice system, the ODPP has a specialized
thematic Division on Children, Witness and Victim Support. The Division has modalities for
the support of and facilitation of witnesses and victims including, a collaborative framework
with Witness Protection Agency. Through this Division, ODPP undertook in collaboration
with the Judiciary, a successful plea-bargain initiative that has significantly reduced case
backlog in the Children’s Court.
7. Prosecution Performance
During the reporting period, ODPP recorded a decrease in the total number of matters it
handled compared to FY 2016/2017. Consequently, the overall conviction rate dropped to
90.3% in 2017/18 from 92.3% in 2016/17.
Table 10.3: Matters handled by ODPP
DESCRIPTIONS
Appeals, judicial reviews and misc. applications 4,309 1.39
Criminal Trial 300,327 97.20
Advice Files 2,719 0.88
Complaints 1,616 0.52
Total 100
10.6.2 Challenges facing the ODPP in FY 2017/2018
1. Low conclusion rate in criminal trials: Despite ongoing investments and efforts
towards addressing low case conclusion rates, there is still a significant backlog of
cases, which affects ODPP’s prosecutorial performance. Such backlog and low case
conclusion rate particularly in major cases, results in loss or deterioration of evidence,
change of Investigating Officers, witness fatigue/intimidation/memory loss and
attrition.
2. Inadequate infrastructural capacity: The Office lacks adequate infrastructural facilities
and capacity in terms of vehicles, legal resources, furniture, equipment and office
space, both at the headquarters and the County Offices.
3. Limited training on emerging crimes: Due to the low budgetary allocations for training
by Treasury and lack of an institute to train Prosecutors, ODPP has inadequate capacity
to train Prosecution Counsel in sufficient numbers in new, emerging and complex
forms of crime such as money laundering, cybercrime and other transnational crimes.
4. Archaic Case-file and mail management process and procedures: Due to limited
resources, ODPP has not sufficiently improved its operational ICT environment
to facilitate better information management and optimization of its core business
processes.
5. Inadequate witness and victim facilitation: There continues to be significant challenges

for Prosecution Counsel to conduct necessary pre-trial sessions due to limited
resources and facilities for pre-trial facilitation of witnesses and victims of crime. This
results in inadequate witness preparation, witness fatigue and eventual collapse of
otherwise meritorious cases.
6. Inadequate human resource: The ODPP staff optimal level is 1297 staff, comprising
927 counsel and 360 central facilitation staff. The ODPP has not been able to attain
the desired level due to uncompetiveness in the job market. The annual staff attrition
rate keep increasing. The NCAJ should give greater voice for the urgent need for
harmonization of terms and conditions of service within the justice sector
7. Archaic and unresponsive laws: The existing criminal laws are not sufficiently
applicable to new and emerging crimes and technological advancements. The
current episodic band-aid approach to review of criminal laws often leads to more
dissonance in the legal framework. There is therefore an urgent need for a multi-
agency led comprehensive review and revision of key procedural, evidential and
substantive criminal laws in order to respond to the complex and ever mutating forms
of criminality.
8. Capacity constraints within other criminal justice agencies: A number of critical
justice agencies such as; the National Police Service, and the Government Chemist,
Probation and Aftercare Service and Kenya Prisons Service, whose work feeds the
ODPP, suffer acute capacity constraints, which inevitably affect services delivery.
For instance, insufficient use of modern investigation techniques due to the lack of
a modern National Forensic Crime Laboratory and inadequate forensic investigation
skills have greatly hampered the ability of the investigative agencies to investigate
complex and emerging crimes. This greatly impacts on the ability of the ODPP to offer
effective and efficient prosecution services. There is need to modernize and enhance
capacity of investigative agencies so as to improve quality of investigations, and in
turn impact positively on the effectiveness of prosecution.
9. Security and safety of staff: In carrying out the mandate, Prosecutors are faced with
threats from the suspects and nefarious agents during trial and when out on bail
and bond. In addition, ODPP offices, both at the headquarters and the Counties are
housed in rented insecure premises, thus exposing officers to vulnerable and unsecure
working environment. The Security of personnel need not be over-emphasized in
these days of increased insecurity.
10. Budgetary constraint: The ODPP continues to suffer acute financial constraints
due to inadequate budgetary allocations. Critical activities and operations remain
pending due to disparity between the requisitions and the actual allocations from the
exchequer. These include hiring of staff, improvement of the ICT infrastructure and
acquisition of offices/equipment in the Counties.
10.7 NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE
The National Police Service (NPS) is established under Article 243. of the Constitution. The
NPS is further regulated by the National Police Service Act 2011, and the National Police
Service Commission Act 2011. The National Police Service consists of: The Kenya Police
Service, the Administrative Police Service, and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.
Crime analysis
In the period under review a total of 42,898 cases were reported to police as compared
to 38,421 cases reported in the same period in 2017. This represented a 12% increase. This
increase was as a result of increases in cases under the categories of Offences against
Morality by 616 cases or 19%, Robbery 301 cases or 19%, Dangerous Drugs 1213 cases or
30%, Criminal Damage 202 cases or 9%, Economic Crimes 155 cases or 8% and other Penal
Code Offences 505 cases or 13%.
Decreases were however noted in the following categories of offences Homicide 36 cases or
3%, Breakings 76 cases or 3%, stealing by Servant 38 cases or 3% and Offences involving
Police Officers 13 or 57%.
Table 1: Comparative crime figures for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018
S / OFFENCE 2016 2017 DIFF. % 2017 2018 DIF. %

NO DIFF DIFF
1 Homicide 1382 1373 -9 -1 1373 1337 -36 -3
2 Offences Against Morality 3037 2684 -353 -12 2684 3300 616 23
3 Other Offences Against Persons 11135 11232 97 1 11232 12181 949 8
4 Robbery 1383 1272 -111 -8 1272 1573 301 24
5 Breakings 2861 3113 252 9 3113 3037 -76 -2
6 Theft Of Stock 992 1058 66 7 1058 1130 72 7
7 Stealing 4933 5652 719 15 5652 6103 451 8
8 Theft by Servant 1155 1304 149 13 1304 1266 -38 -3
9 Vehicle and Other Thefts 636 609 -27 -4 609 718 109 18
10 Dangerous Drugs 3183 2807 -376 -12 2807 4020 1213 43
11 Traffic Offences 67 39 -28 -42 39 56 17 44
12 Criminal Damage 2029 2124 95 5 2124 2326 202 10
13 Economic Crimes 1667 1822 155 9 1822 1977 155 9
14 Corruption 31 33 2 6 33 70 37 112
15 Offences Involving Police Officers 29 36 7 24 36 23 -13 -36
16 Offences Involving Tourist 13 10 -3 -23 10 23 13 130
17 Other Penal Code Offences 3551 3253 -298 -8 3253 3758 505 16
TOTAL 38084 38421 337 1 38421 42898 4477 12
Figure 10.1: Comparative Bar Graph Of Crime Figures For The Periods Jan-Jun 2017/2018
Figure 10.2: Percentage of Crime by type
Activities undertaken by the National Police Service
Key activities undertaken by NPS during the period under review included:-
1. Maintenance of law and order, detection and investigation of crimes, apprehension of

offenders and prevention of crime
2. Crackdown on illicit brews and illegal gaming machines
3. Security coverage during the electioneering period
4. Sensitization of the public through community policing forums on police roles and
promotion of good relations with the broader society.
5. Seminars and trainings aimed at making the Police Service more professional
6. Implementation of the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines
Achievements in the review period
1. Good working relations amongst law enforcement agencies, the Judiciary and
correctional agencies that together constitute the criminal justice system.
2. Improved handling of cases by police officers and courts effectively reducing backlog
3. Reduced crime rates and incidences
4. Increased public trust in the police service
5. Fair administration of bail and bond measures
6. Service oriented discharge of police mandate made has the public more willing to help
curb crime.
7. Through the Court Users Committees, the Service constructively contributed to the
overall success in the administration of justice.
Challenges experienced in the period under review
1. Shortages of prosecution counsels leading to delays in prosecuting cases
2. Lack of proper coordination between prosecutors and investigation officers:

investigating officers views are not considered in fixing hearing dates, grant of
discharges and bail/bond
3. Inadequate court rooms at some courts stations that necessitates sharing between
magistrates and therefore inconveniencing court users
4. Inadequate exhibit storage facilities at court stations compromising the security and
the integrity of exhibits
5. Delayed results from government chemists and pathologists
6. Failure by judicial officers to consider grounds of opposition to applications for bail

and bond for suspects of serious offences
7. Leniency by courts on bail and bond terms leading to truancy and consequentially,
unexecuted warrants of arrest
8. Insufficient and or insecure holding facilities for suspects/remandees at various court

premises
9. Truancy and lateness by some judicial officers that unnecessarily prolongs cases
10. Tendency to allow unnecessary adjournments that eventually affects litigation time
11. Multiplicity of court orders in matters that gives rise to perplexity and the risk of
contempt proceedings.
12. Reluctance to follow-up on complaints and/or interference of witnesses in criminal

cases that has led to discharges and acquittals that would have otherwise not been
granted
13. The inadequacy of investigation time consequent to the 24 hours rule in which suspects
are to be brought before court
14. Un-notified relocation of court cases in different courts thereby creating confusion
amongst litigants
15. Withdrawal of cases by the prosecution without the involvement of investigations

officers
16. Cultural practices have in some areas vitiated law enforcement efforts particularly in
sexual related offences
17. Lack of proper documentation on sureties’ thereby encouraging truancy.
18. Levy of charges on the P3 form (medical report) by health facilities has hindered access
to justice for poor Kenyans unable to pay the requisite KShs.1,000/=.
19. Improper exercise of discretion in granting stay orders
10.8 KENYA PRISONS SERVICES
Introduction
The Kenya Prisons Service (KPS) is a department within the Ministry of Interior and
Coordination of National Government. It is established and governed by the Prisons Act
(Cap 90) and Borstal Institutions Act (Cap 92) Laws of Kenya. It contributes to public safety
and security by ensuring there is safe custody of all persons who are lawfully committed to
prison facilities, as well as facilitating the rehabilitation of custodial sentenced offenders for
community reintegration.
As part of the national criminal justice system, the Kenya Prisons Service plays a vital role
of effective containment of persons held in lawful custody which guarantees protection to
citizenry and to a large extent contributes to security, which is critical for economic stability.
There are 129 gazetted Penal Institutions spread across the country. Nine (9) facilities are
categorized as Maximum Security prisons with prisoners sentenced to 10 years and above,
life or death penalty while 46 of them are classified as main prisons holding categories of
inmates as those found in maximum security units. The remaining 70 are classified as Open
Prisons with prisoners assessed to be of minimum security risk serving up to a maximum
of five years. We also have three borstal institutions and a youth corrective training
centre. The prisons also contain ordinary and capital remand prisoners. The daily average
prisoners’ population is 55,000 (30,000 convicted and 25,000 awaiting trial) against an
accommodation capacity of 29,000 prisoners. This implies that the prison facilities are over
100% overcrowded. Furthermore, in average, there are about 300 children aged 4 years and
below accompanying their mothers in prison.
Overcrowding continues to place a huge burden on the management, control and

rehabilitation of prisoners. In addition, the Service is currently holding a significant number
of offenders charged with and/or convicted for terrorism related offences (including violent
extremism), cybercrime and other transnational crimes which pose a gross security threat.
During the year under review, the KPS undertook various activities;
1. Kenya Prisons Service in collaboration with the Community Service Orders

Coordination Board and the Judiciary carried out a joint exercise where resident
Judges issued revisionary orders that placed petty offenders on community service
with a view of easing overcrowding in prison facilities.
2. Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in partnership with Kenya Prisons carried
out a review of remand cases throughout the country with an aim of fast tracking
the backlog of cases as well as to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms (ADR).
3. Implementation of sentencing guidelines.
4. Educating and enlightening inmates on the bail/bond terms and their application.
Achievements
In line with the government’s agenda on transforming the security institutions, KPS has
achieved significant milestones in the following areas:
1. Infrastructural development
To address the huge number of prisoners population, the department since 2013 to
date has constructed and gazetted new prisons including Makueni, Kwale, Mwingi,
Rachuonyo, Kaloleni, Bomet, Vihiga, Yatta, Marimanti, Kehancha, Chuka, Kilgoris,
Sotik, Loitoktok, Maara, Nyamira and Mutomo as well upgraded existing facilities
in more than 70 prisons. More significantly, the construction of Kamae Girls Borstal
Institution, which began in 2014, is aimed at contributing to effective rehabilitation
of youthful female offenders and minimizing chances of them being contaminated by
adult female prisoners. In addition, Kamiti Juvenile Home was established to prevent
contamination of male juveniles by adult offenders.
2. Rehabilitation of offenders
Since 2013, more than 26,000 inmates have gone through our vocational training
programs while 5,000 of them completed their trade tests. Majority of these prisoners
have since been released and reintegrated back to society where they are making a
positive contribution to the development of our economy.
3. Staff Housing
A total of 942 staff housing units were constructed in the period under review year
2017. The department has been included in Police and Prisons housing program where
5,000 new units are expected to be constructed for Prisons staff. Towards that end,
350 units are at an advanced stage of completion at Kamiti, Shimo la Tewa and Ruiru
prisons.
4. Staff strength
There has been consistent expansion of uniformed staff strength to the current
establishment of 23,600. This is due to the recruitment exercise conducted in May 2017
which enabled the department to increase its staff personnel. In doing so, KPS has
ensured its commitment to provide equal opportunities to both genders in line with
the affirmative action.
5. Capacity Building
In a bid to promote professionalism, a number of prison staff have undergone capacity

building including training both locally and internationally. This has enabled them to
familiarize themselves with best practices. The department has standing agreements
with some international organizations like JICA, SIDA, African Prisons Project among
others for our officers to participate in their annual trainings.
6. Implementation of Audit on Criminal Justice System
Through NCAJ, the Kenya Prisons Service in liaison with the Legal Resources
Foundation conducted an audit of Kenya’s Criminal Justice System with focus on
pre-trial detention. The research team visited several prisons, police stations and
courts. The report was launched and a Committee was constituted to implement its
recommendations.
7. Review of Legislation governing Kenya Prisons Service
Kenya Prisons Services, in liaison with stakeholders who are part of NCAJ, reviewed
its legislations (Prisons Act, Chapter 90 and Borstal Institutions Act, Chapter 92) Laws
of Kenya in order to align them with the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and International
Instruments. The Bills were forwarded to Attorney General’s office for onward
transmission to Parliament for approval.
8. Establishment of Human Rights offices and Justice Centres (Paralegal offices) in all Penal
Institutions
Kenya Prisons Service in liaison with stakeholders such as APP, RODI-Kenya, Legal
Resources Foundation (LRF) has established human rights offices and paralegal offices
in all penal institutions. Further, the department has trained prison officers as human
rights officers who handle human rights issues for prisoners and officers.
9. Legal Aid Services to prisoners
The Directorate of Legal Aid in Kenya Prisons Service (advocates) in liaison with other
stakeholders such as Kituo Cha Sheria, Christian Lawyers among others render pro-
bono services to prisoners who cannot hire private advocates to represent them in
court.
10. Survey on Child Care Institutions
Kenya Prisons Service in liaison with NCAJ and the Department of Children Services
is conducting a survey in all institutions holding children to establish whether they
attain the internationally required standards.
Challenges
1. Overcrowding
The department continues to experience overcrowding in our institutions. The current

holding capacity has been exceeded by over 100%. The impact of overcrowding is
evident in terms of poor service delivery due to overstretched resources and a rise in
various risks that include spread of communicable diseases as well as security threats
among many others.
Overcrowding could be attributed to the following;
a. Rise in crime rate: The country continues to experience high rates of crime. With
a high rate in crime leading to many offenders being committed to prisons. This
is exacerbated by long periods of pre-trial detention.
b. Ignorance of law: Majority of the inmates in our institutions are detained due to
lack of information as pertains the law in regard to pleas, bail and bonds.
c. Inadequate legal representation: Majority of the inmates cannot be able to secure

the services of an advocate or legal representation because they cannot afford
the legal fees.
d. Death penalty: Inmates sentenced to death stay for long periods on death row
before their sentences are commuted to life or definite sentences. Currently, the
department holds approximately 109 inmates sentenced to suffer death.
2. Inadequate/Lack of Infrastructure
Existing infrastructure is inadequate vis-a-vis the number of inmates they are

supposed to serve. These include inmates’ accommodation, training workshops and
health facilities among others.
3. Inadequate vehicles/transport
Inadequate and unserviceable vehicles impact negatively particularly on timely

production of inmates to courts which ultimately slows down the dispensation of
justice.
4. Inadequate funding
The National Treasury provides inadequate allocations to the prison department

requirements leading to accumulated pending bills and inability to provide essential
services to the prisoners.
5. Implementation of the bail and bond policies
The issue of petty offenders being subjected to pay high bail is still a challenge, as
majority of the offenders cannot afford to pay which leads them to prison. Therefore,
Judiciary should fully implement the bail, bond and sentencing policies developed as
a way of reducing overcrowding in prisons.
6. Non-custodial sentences
Encourage Judiciary to use non-custodial sentences to reduce congestion.
7. Implementation of Article 49 (2) of the Constitution
There is need for the courts to implement Article 49 (2) of the Constitution by
ensuring that a person who has committed an offence punishable by a fine only or by
imprisonment for not more than six months is not remanded in custody.
8. Land Encroachment
Members of the public have encroached on prison land making it difficult to establish
new institutions and expand existing ones.
10.9 PROBATION AND AFTER CARE SERVICES
Introduction
Probation and Aftercare Service endeavours to enhance the administration of justice,

community safety and public protection through provision of various advisory social inquiry
reports, supervision and reintegration of non-custodial offenders, victim support and
social crime prevention efforts. It is also key in the enforcement of various non-custodial
Court orders under the probation of offenders Act and the Community Service Orders Act,
which are the primary legislation, geared towards reduction of penal overcrowding. The
mandate of the department is expanding rapidly owing to the increasing role it plays in the
administration of criminal justice, which now included preparing Victim Impact Statements,
Reports for Plea Agreements, and Bail Information Reports.
Activities and Achievements:
Probation Court Work: Probation court work revolves around preparation of various
advisory reports related to sentencing (committal of young offenders to institutions), bail
decision making, victim statements, plea agreements and the breach action arising from
the supervision orders made by the court.
During the period under review, the department provided Pre-sentence Advisory Reports,
which are instrumental in making court decisions to place offenders on any of the community
sentences of probation orders or community service orders. Bail Information Report made
pursuant to Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution, Section 123A of the Criminal Procedure
Code and the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines (2015). Victim Impact statements are made
pursuant to section 329 of the CPC and the Victim protection Act of 2014. Plea Agreement
reports although relatively new have also become a feature of Probation court work in some
court stations. Probation officer also provided reports on select criminal matters requiring
alterative dispute resolutions besides holding consultations and case conference with
magistrates especially on matters involving child offenders.
These invaluable reports resulted in courts making supervision orders in accordance with
the Probation of Offenders Act and Community Service orders Act as shown here below.
Probation Orders
Probation orders are issued by courts in the case of low risk offenders deemed suitable
for community supervision without any form of punishment. During the reporting period,
14,814 enquiries/presentence reports were made on for adult offenders and 2,133 for juvenile
offenders. As a result 8,643 probation supervision orders were made in lieu of imprisonment
for adult offenders and 1,986 for juveniles. As at the end of June 2018, a cumulative 14, 9697
probationers were under supervision countrywide.
Table 10.4: Probationers under supervision
2017/18 COURT INQUIRIES POR SUPERVISION ORDERS

MALE FEMALE ADULTS MALE ADULTS FEMALE ADULTS
July 1231 271 654 196 12812
August 790 147 463 114 12812
September 1165 248 656 195 12126
October 1014 219 547 150 14106
November 933 181 437 148 13236
December 959 193 515 138 12924
January 1078 275 568 186 12601
February 1156 290 618 216 12419
March 1003 263 548 201 12471
April 630 169 365 149 10234
May 1134 232 662 198 11482
June 1008 225 548 171 12474
TOTAL 12101 2713 6581 2062 14,9697
Table 10.5: Probation Juvenile’s Cases
2017/18 COURT INQUIRIES SUPERVISION ORDERS
MALE FEMALE juveniles MALE FEMALE juveniles
July 131 25 125 25
August 132 34 125 33
September 130 30 129 28
October 129 28 108 26
November 128 23 116 20
December 141 39 107 37
January 178 20 162 18
February 205 23 198 20
March 116 18 109 17
April 109 19 102 15
May 225 22 213 21
June 202 26 208 24
TOTAL 1826 307 1702 284
10.10 COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
Community service orders is an order of the court requiring an offender to perform

unpaid public work for a specific length of time as a punishment and as an alternative
to imprisonment. During the reporting period, 33,594 enquiries/presentence reports
were made on for adult offenders for purposes of making community service order
(CSO). Consequently 30,736 community service supervision orders were made in lieu of
imprisonment. As at the end of June 2018, a total of 51,900 probationers had serviced CSO in
the year under supervision countrywide. In should be noted that most offenders on CSO are
given a very short sentences mostly one day meaning that probation/community service
officers do not adequate time to address their criminal behaviour. Arresting those who do
not comply with community service work especially in urban slums is still a challenge.
Table 10.6: Community Service Orders
2017/18 COURT INQUIRIES SUPERVISION ORDERS CASELOAD

MALE FEMALE ADULT MALE FEMALE ADULT CUMULATIVE
ADULT ADULT
July 1256 164 1168 161 4931
August 1458 368 1029 192 4630
September 1745 236 1670 226 4014
October 1230 247 1156 278 1659
November 2195 418 2133 405 4001
December 2068 292 1998 251 4879
January 3363 479 3223 433 4505
February 2999 513 2840 560 4016
March 2617 491 2436 428 3946
April 2089 373 1818 335 4051
May 4797 702 3975 647 5894
June 3035 459 2924 450 5374
TOTAL 28852 4742 26370 4366 51900
Community Service Orders in juvenile Cases
Community service orders Act does not state clearly whether children can be placed on
community service much as the children Act does. However, the National CSO Committee
developed guidelines on how CSO can be applied to children aged 16 years and below 18
years. In the year under review, there were 106 cares inquired into with a view to having
then placed on CSO and all were placed.
Table 10.7: CSO Juvenile Cases
2017/18 COURT INQUIRIES SUPERVISION ORDERS

MALE Juveniles FEMALE juveniles MALE juveniles FEMALE juveniles
July 9 0 9 0
August 7 3 7 3
September 6 6 6 6
October 4 6 4 6
November 5 1 5 1
December 6 0 6 0
January 5 0 5 0
February 6 1 6 1
March 4 6 4 6
April 7 5 7 5
May 6 3 6 3
June 10 0 10 0
TOTAL 75 31 75 31
Bail information reports

Bail information report or pre-bail reports as they are commonly referred to, are vital tool
for decision-making in bail matters. These reports are prepared at the court’s request either
at the initial point after plea taking or as a means to review already given bail terms and
where the accused person has remained in prison custody and unable to meet the said terms
and, has requested for such review. The department was able to prepare a total of 6,619
reports during the prion under review.
Table 10.8: Bail Information Reports
2017/18 Reports
July 632
August 553
September 645
October 707
November 541
December 530
January 767
February 722
March 683
April 547
May 292
June 0
TOTAL 6,619
Community Service Orders Driven Prison Decongestion Sentence Review
Prison decongestion exercises where carried out with probation officers providing
Sentience review reports for the High Courts that participated in the exercise. Sentence
review is undertaken by the High Court judges as a measure of enhancing the utilization of
Community Service orders pursuant to the CSO Act and the Criminal procedure code and as
a means to reduce prison overcrowding. It targets convicted prisoners imprisoned to three
years and below or those whose sentences have reduced to below three years.
During the year under eview, there were two CSO prison decongestion sentence review
exercises. A total of 16,240 prisoner’s cases were forwarded to the CSO Secretariat from
Prison HQs for sentence review with view to decongest prisons. 12,435 remained after
removing from the list those whose sentences would expire before May 2018. All prison
stations in 39 high court stations were involved in the exercise. The following were the results
• 7181 High Court revision files were opened and sentence review reports filed by
community service officers.
• 5913 revision orders were made by the respective revision Judges of the High Court
• 4746 release orders issued (CSO, Probation or immediate release)
• 1167 imprisonment terms were not varied
The remaining 5,575 cases had their sentences expired before the revision could be made,
had lodged appeals hence could not be reviewed, refused to be interviewed by community
service officers or declined review of their sentences preferring to complete their
imprisonment terms.
Although the decongestion reduced the number of convicted prisoners in the various
prisons, a majority of them were given short CSO supervision period.
The challenges experienced in the decongestion exercise were
1. A large number of inmates included in the list had short imprisonment period
remaining. Sentence review requiring a probation officers report needs time to
undertake inquiries yet little time was availed. As such all prison sentences expiring
before 15th of May 2018 were not considered because the review was to begin in the
second week of May 2018. Hence deserving prisoners were not included in the list for
possible review of their sentences.
2. Retrieval of lower court files for the probation officers to peruse and to open High court
Revision files is still a challenge in some courts
3. Resistance to sentence review is still a challenge in a few areas among stakeholders.

Probation officers were denied entry to some prisons to conduct interviews but
intervention from prison HQs resolved the problem
4. Some prisoners decline interviews by probation officers, opting to complete sentences.
5. Continued downward trend in referral and placements of offenders to CSO
6. Training for CSO work agency supervisors and magistrates should to be continuous
yet funds are not enough.
7. Unable to achieve our target in training of 150 magistrates. Authority to train from JSC
was not obtained from the judiciary
There was a great improvement in the manner in which the sentence review was conducted.
15 judges participated in the exercise. Delays in retrieval of lower court files and submission
of sentence review reports were greatly minimized. There were minimal postponements
of sentence review dates. There is need to form a committee to vet prisoners so that more
deserving prisoners can be targeted for decongestion.
Challenges related to administration of Community Service Orders
1. The National CSO Committee is yet to be constituted through gazette notice. Their
term expired and new members were proposed for gazzetement.
2. There is a marked decline in placement of offenders on CSO. Many work agencies who
have always relied on offenders for labour are feeling the loss and some tasks remain
undone due to lack of workers.
3. Transport remains a thorny issue for field stations. It hampers ability to generate
reports and monitor offenders at work sites.
Financial Resource Allocation
In the FY 2017/18, the department received Ksh. 411,910,975/- for the both developed
and recurrent expenditures but less personnel emolument. Out of this, 301,110,975 was
for recurrent expenditure (to cover court work, offender supervision, office supplies, and
running of Probation Institutions) while 110,800,000/- was for development expenditure.
There was thus, an increment in both recurrent and development expenditure allocation.
Table 10.9: Financial Allocation to Probation and Aftercare Department
Item FY 2016/17 FY2017/18 Variance

Recurrent Budget 236,9598,984/- 301,110,975/- + 64,150,991/-
Development 92,100,000/- 110,800,000/- + 18,700,000/-
Totals 329,059,984/- 411,910,975/- + 82,850,991
Human Resource
There was an increment in the number of probation officers with the recruitment of 305
fresh graduate staff. However, this is far less than the optimum number that the government
initiated programme of human resource Capacity Assessment and Rationalization
Programme (CARPS) that capped required probation officers at 3000. We hope that the
appeal to increase the number of probation officer will bear fruit so as to accommodate
increased work demands from the courts and increased number of magistrates and judges,
work created by the Power of Mercy Committee and the Psychiatric Offenders at Mathari
Mental Hospital.
Table 10.10: Human Resource
ITEM 2016/17 2017/18 VARIANCE

Probation officers 609 837 +228
Other staff 353 350 -3
962 1,187 + 225
Infrastructure and Office Construction
There is no project that was initiated in the department in the period under review as all
infrastructural development projects were curried forward from the previous year. As can
be noted above, there was a massive reduction in development expenditure by over 63%.
Siaya Girls Probation Hostel is the second such facility for females other than the one in
Nakuru while others for males are in Nairobi, Mombasa and Eldoret
Table 10.11: Developments Projects Implemented By Probation Department In FY2017-18
CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT PERCENTAGE 1ST HALF CUMULATIVE ESTIMATED

TITLE AND LOCATION COMPLETION ALLOCATION ACTUAL COST
EXPENDITURE UP-
2017/18 TO ( JUNE2018) OF THE
PROJECT
1 Siaya Probation Female (69.6%) - 106,809,743.00 153,300,000
Hostel
2 Muranga East Probation (46.25%) 4,000,000.0 15,150,000.00 32,750,000.00
Office
3 Makueni Probation Office (100%) 1,548,750.00 12,750,000.00 12,951,300.00

4 Nyeri Central Probation Office (89.9% 1,991,250 8,940,104.00 9,940,104.00
5 Kapsabet(Nandi) Probation (81%) 1,106,250.00 9,106,250.00 11,200,000.00

Office
6 Bungoma East (Webuye) (46.8%) 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4,270,000.00
Probation Office
7 Nairobi Boys Probation (8%) 3,123,059.00 3,123,059.00 30,000,000.00

Hostel
8 Nakuru Girls Probation (16%) 4,660,000.00 4,660,000.00 29,060,000.00
Hostel.
9 Runyejes Probation Office (43,6%) 1,548,750.00 1,548,750.00 3,548,750.00
11 Narok Probation Office (44.25%) 1,770,000.00 1,770,000.00 4,000,000.00
12 Busia Probation Office (22.7%) 1,327,500.00 1,327,500.00 5,827,500.00
13 Kericho Probation Office (50%) 1,100,000.00 1,100,000.00 2,200,000.00
14 Kilifi Probation Office 75% 1,850,000.00 1,850,000.00 2,500,000.00
15 Tana Delta Probation Office (47.6%) 1,548,750.00 1,548,750.00 3,248,750.00
16 Gatundu Probation Office (45.76%) 885,000.00 885,000.00 1,993,750.00
17 Isiolo Probation Office (44.2%) 1,991,250.00 1,991,250.00 4,500,000.00

18 Malindi Probation Office (50%) 750,000.00 750,000.00 1,500,000.00
19 Mariakani Probation Office (50%) 500,000.00 500,000.00 1,000,000.00
20 Kiambu Probation Office (46, 9%) 1,770,000.00 1,770,000.00 3,770,000.00
21 Refurbishment of office block (50%) 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 3,000,000.00
at Mombasa Probation office.
22 Residential building and - 12,000,000.00 23,000,000.00
other civil works at Makadara
boys’ Hostel
Information Communication and Technology
a) The department is progressively embracing ICT to improve on service delivery. The

probation stations have at least one or two computers which is till few considering
the need for automation and the number of staff required to use the computer. Some
of the computers used the department are more than 10 years old. There is thus,
serious need for more computers to ease court work and generally improve on case
management practices
b) Offender Record Management System was developed couple of years to address

offender record management challenges. However, the system has continued to
experience challenges mostly associated with internet service provision, capacity
and it also requires a comprehensive systems review and upgrade.
Challenges
Most of the challenges which were experienced in 2017/2018 persisted into the current
period under review.
1. Inadequate transport/vehicles to carryout supervision of offenders’ service non-

custodial orders is still with the department as no vehicle was purchased or allocated
to the department in the year under review. Not all probation stations have a vehicle
and unserviceable 1978 Land Rovers, which are uneconomical to run with the meager
resources, are still in use in some stations.
2. There is greater increase for demand for probation officers by the Judiciary (particularly
with Bond and Bail Policy implementation) and for community supervision of offenders
yet only 837 probation officers are in post. A significant number of officers have left
the service to join Constitutional Commissions while others have exited due to natural
attrition. This has left the department with a deficit, which poses a serious challenge in
succession management and service delivery as there is no immediate replacement.
3. Generation of social advisory reports to courts and other penal release organs is greatly
hampered by inadequate funding in spite of increased workload especially in the field
stations. This greater in stations where there are mobile courts.
4. Weak offender supervision and rehabilitation practices occasioned by transport and

competency gaps especially with new officer recently employed.
5. The Kenyan Society is so vindictive and in some instances do not appreciate non-serious
offenders to serve non-custodial measures in the community thus always demanding
harsh penalties even for petty offences placing high demand on courts.
6. The Probation Service Offender Records Management System (ORMS) is not in operation
owing to technical problems and internet connectivity. The inability to complete LAN
installation as a result of lack of funding for ICT compounds this problem.
7. No clear Law to anchor new functions-bail reports and supervision of bailees,-

supervision of offenders released on Presidential Power of Mercy Pardon,-Preparation
of Bail information reports and Plea Agreements reports -Prison Decongestion through
CSO
Policy and Legislation:
The current legislative framework (the Probation of Offenders Act Cap 64 and that of the
Community Service Orders Act No 10 of 1998) requires a comprehensive but this has not
been done. This draft Amendment Bills (proposals) were presented for consideration in 2015.
The amendments of the two pieces of legislation were to align the sector’s laws with the
Constitution. The amendments are also proposed to address other operational challenges
including legal anchorage for new functions. Nevertheless, there are a few amendments,
which have been proposed, in the miscellaneous amendment Bill 2018 for both probation of
Offenders Act and CSO Act, which hopefully will address some of the immediate challenges.
In the same line, the Hon. Chief Justice gazetted rules/direction related to CSO Act that will
see courts hopefully making use of SCO as an alternative to imprisonment as intended in
the penal code
Draft Rules for probation of offenders Act and CSO Act have been developed internally. This
is yet to be subjected to internal validation and stakeholder participation.
10.11 COMMUNITY SERVICES ORDER PROGRAMME
The Community Service Orders (CSO) Programme derives its mandate from the CSOs Act
and it is mainly geared towards offenders whose imprisonment sentences attract three (3)
years and below. It targets mainly non-serious offenders who pose no threat to themselves,
the victim or the community. Offenders placed on community service engage in un-paid
public works for a specified period within the community.
The structure of the programme entails a combination of Judicial and Probation Officers
where the Chairman of the National Community Service Orders Committee and of the
National Executive Committee is a Judge of the High Court appointed by the Chief Justice.
The programme runs a Secretariat headed by the National Community Service Orders
Coordinator who is a judicial officer, where Probation Officers are also referred to as
Community Services Officers.
Activities, Achievements And Challenges
1. Sentence Review
A list of 16,240 prisoners was forwarded to the CSO Secretariat from Prison Headquarters
for sentence review with view to decongest prisons. 12,435 offenders remained after
removing from the list those whose sentence would expire before May 2018. The exercise
was conducted in all prison stations in 39 High Court stations between 26th to29th March
2018 in Nairobi, and 7th May to June 24th 2018 Countrywide.
The main achievement noted from this exercise was that 7181 revision files were opened
and sentence review filed. Out of this, 5913 revision orders were made and 4746 release
orders issued (CSO, Probation or immediate release). 1167 were not varied. It was noted
that 5,575 were either repeated on the list, sentences expired, lodged appeals, refused to be
interviewed or declined review of their sentences
A challenge noted was a large number of inmates included in the list had short sentences
remaining. Sentence review requiring a probation officers report needs time to undertake
inquiries. As such, all prison sentences expiring before 15th of May were not considered
because the review was to begin in the second week of May. It was uneconomical to focus
on such cases. The challenge here is that deserving prisoners were not included in the list
for possible review of their sentences. A number of prisoners had their names repeated
in subsequent lists. Retrieval of files from the lower court files is still a challenge in some
courts. There was also resistance to sentence review in a few areas among stakeholders.
Probation officers were denied entry to some prisons to conduct interviews but intervention
from the Prison Headquarters resolved the problem. In some instances, some prisoners
declined interviews by probation officers, opting to complete their remaining sentences.
There was a great improvement in the manner in which the sentence review was conducted.
15 Judges participated in the exercise. Delays in retrieval of lower court files and submission
of sentence review reports were greatly minimized. There were minimal postponements of
sentence review dates. There is need to form a committee to vet prisoners so that deserving
prisoners can be considered for decongestion.
2. Referrals and Placements of offenders to CSO
This was a countrywide exercise that took place from between 1st July 2017 to 30th June
2018. 33,808 cases were referred to CSO amongst them 31,881 offenders were placed on
community service orders by courts countrywide. There is a continued downward trend in
referral and placements of offenders to CSO. The CSO programme requires strengthening in
order to reduce congestion in prisons.
3. Training of CSO Supervisions
This was done in Kilungu, Mwingi, Thika, Mbeere, Naivasha, Molo, Kehancha, Moyale,
Marsabit during the last financial year where 210 supervising officers were trained. The
objective was to strengthen compliance, work supervision and promote rehabilitation.
Training for supervisors ought to be continuous but funds are not enough.
Supervisors are the backbone of CSO programme. More should be trained to improve on
supervision and rehabilitation of offenders
4 Sensitization of magistrates
This was done in Mombasa between November 2017 where 11 magistrates were sensitized
on CSO. They were unable to achieve the target in training of 150 magistrates since the
authority to train from JTI was not obtained. It is very important to sensitize magistrates on
CSO in order to reduce prison congestion by using more of CSO as a sentence.
5 Training case committee members
This was done in Mombasa, Taveta, Loitokitok, Narok, Keroka, Nyamira, Moyale Marsabit.
February to June 2018 121 members trained Inadequate funds to train all members
Need to ensure members take control of CSO management in the field stations
6 Implementation of Environmental Management Act

A total of 20,461 trees were planted by prisoners released to serve non-custodial sentences
in various counties between 1/7/16 to 30/6/17. The greatest challenge is inadequate funds
to purchase tree seedlings for planting. A programme to increase tree seedlings production
countrywide needs to be put in place to utilize offenders in forest regeneration.
General challenges
1. Some members of the National CSO committee are yet to be gazette by the Cabinet
Secretary. Their term expired in 2016 and new members were proposed to the Cabinet
Secretary.
2. There is a marked decline in placement of offenders on CSO. Many work agencies who
have always relied on offenders for labour are feeling the loss and some tasks remain
undone due to lack of workers.
3. Transport remains a thorny issue for field stations. It hampers ability to generate
reports and monitor offenders at work sites.
10.12 ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Introduction
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is a statutory body established under the
Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2011 pursuant to Article 79 of the Constitution.
Its mandate is to combat and prevent corruption and economic crime in Kenya through
law enforcement, preventive measures, public education and promotion of standards and
practices of integrity, ethics and anti-corruption. The Commission has initiated a number of
programs in line with its mandate namely: Law enforcement; Corruption prevention; public
education and awareness creation, and Partnerships, Networks and Coalitions against
Corruption.
Achievements in FY 2017/18
The Commission achieved the following in the FY 2017/18
Table 10.12: Law Enforcement
PARTICULARS ACHIEVEMENTS
1. Complaints and allegations received and processed 6,235
2. Reports on Ethical breaches 426
3. Complaints taken up by the Commission 2,898
4. Completed Investigations (Files) submitted to DPP 183
5. Value of Illegally Acquired and Unexplained Assets Traced Kshs. ,320,140,000
6. Proactive Investigations – Averted loss approximately Kshs. ,702,004,878
7. Civil Proceedings – value of assets recovered Kshs. 352,185,804
8. Applications for Preservation of assets made 26
9. Cases filed against the Commission 67
1. Strengthening Laws in the Fight against Corruption
The following measure was undertaken with a view to strengthen laws in the fight
against corruption.
2. Recommendations towards Review of the Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework for
Combating Corruption in Kenya
The Commission supported the development and strengthening of Legal Anti-

Corruption framework by implementing the recommendations of the Report of the
Task Force on Review of the Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework. The Report was
adopted in 2016. The Legal Bills progressed during the year were the Anti-Corruption
Laws (Amendment) Bill 2017, the Whistle Blower Protection Bill, 2017 and the False
Claims Bill, 2017. In addition, draft Corruption Prevention Guidelines and Regulations
under the Bribery Act, 2016 were developed.
Table 2: Achievemnts on promotion of Ethics and Integrity through implementation and

enforcement of Chapter Six of the Constitution
PARTICULARS ACHIEVEMENTS
Cases on ethical breaches finalized in court 2
Entities supported in development of specific Leadership and Integrity Codes for State 9
officers
Notices issued to public entities and persons in violation of Chapter Six and LIA 36
Cautions issued to public entities and persons in violation of Chapter Six and LIA 41
Advisories given on chapter 6 of the Constitution and LIA 136
Developed generic administrative Procedures for management of Declaration of 47
income, assets and liabilities for County Public Service Boards.
Developed generic administrative Procedures for management of Declaration of 47
income, assets and liabilities for County Assemblies Service Boards.
3. Corruption prevention
The Commission finalized and released a report on the examination of systems, policies,
procedures and practices of work at the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning. The
examination reviewed the technical and support areas of the Ministry and covered the
Ministry Headquarters, selected County Governments departments in charge of land
and physical planning and other stakeholders.
Further, The Commission undertook and presented reports of Corruption Risk

Assessment (CRAs) into the systems, policies, procedures and practices of Nakuru and
Kajiado County Executives and Assemblies.
The Commission reviewed and provided feedback on quarterly reports submitted by

Ministries, Departments and Agencies under the Corruption Eradication Indicator
for Performance Contracting Period, FY 2017/2018. A total of 478 reports from 224
institutions were analyzed and feedback provided
4. Public Education and Awareness Creation
The Commission undertook public Anti-Corruption Outreach clinics in various forms.

These forums included; county forums, markets, village barazas and cultural festivals,
among others. Through this outreach, approximately 7,300 people were reached with
the Anti-Corruption message on a face-to-face encounter.
The Commission also reached an estimated 27 million people through media

programmes; sensitized 10,117 state and public officers; and disseminated 18,500 IEC
materials. Moreover, 619 Community Based Anti-Corruption Monitors were sensitized
and 8 Civil Society organizations were engaged.
In additional, School Outreach programmes were undertaken in 227 institutions of

learning, 1374 students sensitized and 106 Integrity Clubs established. A total of 1,124
Integrity Assurance Officers from 137 institutions were also trained in addition to
1,318 Corruption Prevention Committee members from 81 institutions drawn from
the National and County Governments. The Commission also conducted training and
sensitization for Board members and officers from Independent Commissions. A total
of 322 participants from 9 Institutions were trained.
5. Partnerships, Networks and Coalitions against Corruption
The Commission continues to build partnerships, networks and coalitions in the

fight against corruption and unethical conduct. This is spearheaded through the
Kenya Leadership and Integrity Forum which is a national integrity system set up to
coordinate a unified sector-based strategy for preventing and combating corruption.
The Forum incorporates fifteen (15) sectors namely: The Legislature, Judiciary,
Executive, EACC, Education, Watchdog Agencies, County Governments, Private
Sector, Media, Enforcement Agencies, Professional Associations, Labour, Civil Society,
Religious Sector and Constitutional Commissions.
During the reporting period Kenya Leadership and Integrity Forum implemented the
following programmes:
i) Implementation of the Kenya Integrity Plan (KIP 2015-2019)
The Kenya Integrity Plan (KIP) provides a strategy for promoting integrity and ethical
conduct through partnerships and collaborative networks for the period 2015-2019.
The Plan takes into account the Constitution, Kenya Vision 2030 and other legal and
policy instruments in the fight against corruption.
Achievements in the implementation of KIP include:

• Implementation of the Sector Action Plans for the FY 2017-2018
• Production of the Implementation Progress Report for the period 2015-2017
• Capacity building of the Sector Coordinating Committee (SCC) on anti-
corruption, ethics, integrity and good governance
ii) Commemoration of the International Anti-Corruption Day
Kenya commemorates the International Anti-Corruption Day (IACD) pursuant to the

UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 of 2003 to raise awareness on how corruption
undermines democracy and the rule of law; leads to human rights violations; distorts
markets; erodes quality of life; and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats
to human security to flourish.
On 9th December 2017, the Forum spearheaded the commemoration of the International
Anti-Corruption Day through a Media Campaign with the theme: “United Against
Corruption”.
iii) KLIF National Coordinating Committee Meetings
The Forum hosted three high level National Coordinating Committee Meetings to
provide policy direction, mobilize resources and leverage on synergies in the fight
against corruption. The meetings chaired by the Hon. Attorney General, hosted
Accounting Officers from all the Sectors.
6. Research Programmes
The EACC undertakes both diagnostic and thematic studies on an annual basis to
establish the nature; magnitude, loopholes and processes prone to corruption and
unethical conduct. This guides policy and anti-corruption programme development.
In this regard, the Commission conducted the following studies during the year in
review:
i) An Assessment of Project Implementation in Kenya: A Case Study of County Revenue

Fund and Constituency Development Fund Projects, 2017
ii) National Ethics and Corruption Survey, 2017
i) An Assessment of Project Implementation in Kenya: A Case Study of County Revenue Fund and
Constituency Development Fund Projects, 2017
The overall objective of the study was to identify the existing loopholes and processes
prone to corruption in the implementation of CDF and County projects and propose
measures to seal those loopholes.
The findings of the Assessment suggest the following:
a) Companies doing business with CDF offices have a higher chance of winning
public tenders compared to those doing business with Counties (increased odds
of winning by 2.02 times).
b) Those companies that were not involved in the development of project

specifications had their chances of winning public tenders reduced to 22 percent
compared to those that were involved in the development.
c) Companies that benchmark their price with other suppliers bidding for the same
tender had a higher chance of winning tenders compared to those who use the
prevailing market prices. The same was deduced for those companies that quoted
market prices but factored in big profit margins as their odds of winning a tender
was increased by 1.14 times compared to those who quoted market prices.
d) Companies getting information on bidding opportunities from friends,

procurement officers, County and CDF officers and other suppliers had higher
chances of winning public tenders compared to those relying on newspapers.
ii) The National Survey on Corruption and Ethics, 2017
The overall objective of the Survey, conducted between 18th September and 24th
October 2017, was to provide data that would inform the anti-corruption strategy in
the country. A mixed design methodology was adopted and involved utilization of
questionnaires for face-to-face interviews; key informant discussion guides and a
systematic review of literature. The Survey covered all the 47 counties with a sample of
5,977 household respondents and 15 key informants. The Survey covered the following
areas;
a) Seeking of Government Services
The Survey sought to find out if the respondents had interacted with government
agencies and their experiences therefrom. The findings revealed that there was
no significant change in the proportion of those seeking services in public offices
between 2016 (63.6%) and 2017 (63.5%).
b) Level of Corruption and Unethical Conduct
The Survey sought to know how respondents perceived the level of corruption
and unethical conduct in Kenya and the basis of their rating. The findings revealed
that the level of corruption and unethical conduct dropped to 70.4 percent from
79.4 percent recorded in the 2016 Survey. This is a significant reversal since 2012.
2.8 The Commission Strategic Plan 2018-23
The Commission developed the Strategic Plan 2018-2023 through a consultative

process, taking into account the challenges, constraints and lessons learnt during the
implementation of the previous Strategic Plan. In the next five years, the Commission
will pursue the following five strategic objectives to achieve its mandate and desired
vision. These are to: strengthen policy, legal and regulatory framework; enhance law
enforcement against corruption and unethical conduct; enhance public education,
communication and awareness; enhance the prevention of corruption and unethical
practices, and to enhance institutional capacity of the Commission.
Challenges:
The Commission experienced a number of constraints and challenges which impacted

negatively on the execution of EACC mandate during the reporting period. These include:
a. Inadequate technical staff;
b. High staff turnover;
c. Inadequate support on anti-corruption efforts from accounting officers;
d. Inadequate legal and regulatory framework for enforcement of: Chapter Six of the
Constitution; Leadership and Integrity Act; Declarations of Income, Assets and
Liabilities (DIALs); Integrity verification by the Commission; Amnesty (Section 25
(A) of ACECA); Plea bargaining (Section 137A-137N of CPC); and implementation of
system review recommendations;
e. Adverse judicial decisions;
f. Lenient penalties meted not commensurate with gravity of offences
g. Delay in obtaining evidence from other jurisdictions.
h. Numerous Constitutional references and judicial review applications filed against the
Commission that impede execution of the Commission’s mandate;
i. Lack of enforcement mechanisms for regulatory breaches and implementation of

prevention advisories;
j. Public apathy on governance issues;
k. Politicization and ethnicization of the fight against corruption; and
l. Expansive public service against the staff outlay of the Commission.
10.13 COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
Administration of justice has improved significantly since the inception of devolution. The
citizens of Kenya in the county level are now able to access courts or dispute resolution
mechanisms. Though judicial functions are not devolved, the Judiciary has made significant
reforms within the context of devolution.
During the Financial Year 2017/18,there were achievements and challenges in the justice
sector at the County level as elaborated below;
Highlights Of Activities And Achievements
1. Establishment of Courts
Due to an increase in the number of Court cases within Counties, County Governments
have relinquished its premises for use as Court rooms and in other cases, for example
in Kajiado, they have availed land for construction of the main Law Courts.
2. Participation in the Court Users Committees (CUCs)
Counties have been actively engaged in the CUCs which they have embraced as a
forum to address in an open consultative approach, a broad range of administration of
justice matters both precautionary as well as responsive.
3. Legal Aid
National Legal Aid service has had discussions with the Council of Governors to role
out legal aid services to all the Counties in order to increase access to justice by citizens
even at the grass root level.
4. Favorable Judgments
The Counties appreciate the favorable judgments that support devolution especially on
the 14 devolved functions as provided for in the 4th schedule of the constitution.
Challenges and Recommendations
1. Revenue Allocation
Currently, all revenue accruing from Court cases arising out of violation of County
legislation is collected by the Judiciary and remitted to the Consolidated Fund. Through
the coordination of NCAJ, the Council together with other stakeholders are in the process
of convening a meeting to look into modalities on how fines accruing from County
legislation can revert directly to Counties.
2. Legislative Drafting
Whereas the Constitution and the devolution laws have assigned executive and
legislative authority to the County Governments, there has been a lacuna in developing
County legislation, which has been occasioned by lack of capacity to develop the
required legislation. As a result, most of the devolved functions remain unlegislated
and where legislation has been developed, they fail to meet the required standards. The
Council, through the support of development partners is planning for a legislative and
policy drafting training in order to improve the capacity of Counties to develop sound
legislation, which is key in the implementation of devolved functions.
3. Ignorance of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms
Despite the fact that the Constitution has identified ADR as one of the means of solving
disputes in the administration of justice, authorities have not fully embraced ADR as a
mechanism of solving disputes. There are claims of a party being compromised in one
way or the other.
4. High cost of litigation
As a result of lack of capitalizing on ADR, Counties continue to face heavy bills by

external lawyers on litigating county matters.
5. Lack of a legal framework
There is lack of a clear framework for the establishment of the legal office and understaffing.
Currently, there is no legal framework establishing the office of the County Attorney. In
addition, most Counties have two officers charged with dealing with legal matters in
collaboration with external lawyers.
6. Reluctance in the implementation of County Laws
The Judiciary should prioritize the implementation of County Laws since these County
laws are not by-laws but laws with full legal force. In some instances the County Laws
overrides the National legislation.
7. Lack of County Courts
Counties look forward to the transformation of municipal courts to County courts dealing
with county matters whereby the judiciary and County Governments shall partner in
the establishment of rules and procedures to be applied in enforcing County legislation.
8. Issuance of ex parte orders
In most circumstances, Courts have issued ex parte orders without a fair hearing on the
part of County Governments and some of these orders have hindered development at
the Counties. In addition, due to the backlog of cases, most applicants tend to ride on
conservatory orders for a prolonged period to the disadvantage of the other party.
10.14 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LAW REPORTING
The mandate of the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law) is outlined in the Act
No. 11 of 199 as: the preparation and publication of the reports known as the Kenya Law
Reports, which shall contain judgments, rulings and opinions of the superior courts of
record; undertake such other publications as in the opinion of the Council are reasonably
related to the preparation and publication of the Kenya Law Reports; and perform any other
functions conferred on the Council by or under the provisions of any other written law
In the Financial year ended 2017/2018 Kenya Law undertook the following activities in these
key result areas towards the realization of its mandate.
PROVISION OF PUBLIC LEGAL INFORMATION
a. Kenya Law Reports
Kenya Law is charged with the task of tracking Kenya’s jurisprudence by assembling
the contents that constitute the Kenya Law Reports. This is done though two modes of
publication: online publication through Kenya Law’s website (www.kenyalaw.org );
hard copy publication in the form of actual printed books. In the period under review,
Kenya Law prepared the following publications:
Specialized Products Printed and delivered
1. Presidential Election Petition Vol. 1
KLR Manuscripts Ready for Print

1. Kenya Law Reports: 2013 vol 1
2. Kenya Law Reports : 2013 vol 2
5. Kenya Law Reports : Devolution vol. 1
6. Kenya Law Reports : 1995
7. Kenya Law Reports : 1996
8. Kenya Law Reports : Election Petition Vol. 6
9. Presidential Election Petition Vol. 2
b. Case Law Database
Kenya Law received 16,290 judicial decisions from all the Courts of record in Kenya
in this period and all of these decisions have also been uploaded online and can be
accessed at www.kenyalaw.org.
c. Laws of Kenya
Kenya Law maintains a database of all the Laws of Kenya. There were 493 chapters
of the laws as at 31st June 2018, which contains the full text of Acts of Parliament
(statutes) and regulations (subsidiary legislation) made under those Acts. The laws of
Kenya also include county legislation and as such the organisation also maintains a
separate database of this legislation.
d. Revision of Laws
The laws of Kenya (national legislation) were continuously revised and updated
throughout the year. Revision and Consolidation of newly enacted laws, amendments
and repeals to Laws passed by Parliament was done through the daily amendment of
laws based on the supplements published every Friday in the Kenya Gazette. In the last
one year the organisation was able to revise and update 442 pieces of legislation thus
ensuring that the laws of Kenya database was 89% updated. Kenya Law was therefore
able to provide affordable, reliable and timely access to updated legal content.
e. County Legislation
County Legislation is an integral part of the laws of Kenya. Article 260 of the Constitution
provides that the Laws of Kenya includes legislation enacted by Parliament and an
assembly of a county government. In furtherance of this, Kenya Law maintains a portal
dedicated to the online publication of county legislation from all the 47 Counties of the
Republic. This is segregated into the various Counties so as to ease access to this data.
In the period under review the organisation ensured the collection of County
legislation (acts, bills and legal notices) from all the Counties by actively engaging
the leadership of the Counties and the County Assemblies (Governors and County
Speakers respectively). The County Legislation database now contains 1,200 pieces of
legislation that have been dealt with by the various Counties.
f. Treaties Database
The Constitution of Kenya provides that any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall
form part of the law of Kenya. Kenya Law maintains a database that is dedicated to all
the treaties and agreements that Kenya has taken any action on. This online resource
contains treaties, agreements, conventions and other international instruments to
which Kenya has taken any action in such as ratification, accession and declaration. In
addition to this the database also contains 500 major multilateral instruments sourced
from mainly the United Nations Treaties Repository and African Union Treaties
Database (including those that Kenya is not a signatory to). This database is routinely
updated to incorporate new content as new treaties and agreements are continually
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and other regional
international organizations. The main purpose of this resource is to provide access to
information to legal practitioners and the public at large in compliance with articles 2
(5), 2(6) and 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
g. Laws of Kenya - Print Publications
Kenya Law also provides access to the laws of Kenya through various print publications.
The following publications were printed, with the support of the Judiciary Performance
Improvement Program (JPIP), in this period:
1. The Grey Book
2. The Grey Book Service Issues
3. Commercial Volume Service Issues
4. Public Finance Service Issues
5. Land Law Service Issues
6. Electoral Volume
Kenya Law was also able to finalize and prepare in readiness for print the following
Laws of Kenya manuscripts:
1. Commercial Law Volume
2. Devolution Law Volume
3. Election Volume
4. Grey Book
h. Tribunal Decisions
The Constitution provides that all tribunals exercise judicial authority on behalf of the
people of Kenya. It is therefore important to give access to these decisions in light of
the fact that they determine the rights of citizens. Kenya Law partnered with all the
tribunals (through their association) so as to ensure the publication of their decisions
on the Kenya Law website. A special database was created to host these decisions and
401 tribunal decisions were made available to the public through the website.
i. Publication of Specialized Digests
Kenya Law seeks to provide legal information that is relevant and convenient to legal
professionals and as such prepares various digests to cater for niche legal practice
areas. The following specialised publications were developed during the financial year:
1. Presidential Election Petitions
Following the conclusion of the determination by the Supreme Court of the presidential
election petition that was lodged after the elections that were held on 8th August 2018,
Kenya Law prepared a Presidential Election Booklet that summarised all the rulings
and final decision that was issued by the Court in September 2017. This is the second
series of this publication as the first was published after the presidential election
petition that was lodged in the year 2013.
The Presidential Election Petition Vol. I was printed and Presidential Election Petition
Vol. II had been finalized and will be printed in the FY 2018/2019.
2. Compendium of Rulings on Bail and Bond
The Kenya Law, with the support of and in collaboration with the Judiciary’s Committee
on the implementation of Bail and Bond chaired by Justice Jessie Lesiit, developed a
Compendium of Rulings on Bail and Bond under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The
Digest tracks decisions on the implementation of the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines
which are intended to guide police and judicial officers in the application of laws that
provide for bail and bond. The Compendium has been modelled as a quick and ready
guide to track the emerging jurisprudence on bail and bond matters in Kenya. The
publication is useful to judicial officers, legal practitioners and players in the criminal
justice system that, on a day to day basis, interact with the Bail and Bond Policy
guidelines.
3. Case Digest of Decisions on Capital Markets
Kenya Law developed a case digest on Jurisprudence in the area of Capital Markets
in order to aid the legal fraternity and other interested persons in identifying the
current developments in litigation affecting capital markets. This was a request from
the Capital Markets Authority (CMA), which is keen on developing jurisprudence in
the area of capital markets.
The Digest draws together decisions from the Courts in Kenya that provide guidance
on the interpretation of capital markets laws and procedures as well as inform the
range and exercise of administrative powers vested in the Capital Markets Authority
(CMA) under the Capital Markets Act, Chapter 485A. The Digest is expected to serve as
a critical reference point in guiding all players in the capital markets, especially legal
practitioners, Judges and Judicial Officers on how disputes arising from regulation of
Capital Markets have been dealt with by our Courts.
j. Monitoring Law Reform Issues from the superior Courts of Record
Kenya Law undertakes case analysis and reviews of legislation that has been assented
to and in the process is able to compile all the law reform issues that arise from this
set of legal data. These law reforms are compiled and transmitted to the Office of the
Attorney for their consideration and further action. Kenya Law therefore prepared a
compilation of law reform issues, as raised by the courts in their judgments and as
noted in various legislation, for all the quarters of the FY 2017/2018 and forwarded the
same to the Attorney General’s office and the Kenya Law Reform Commission. Some
of the major law reform issues that have been highlighted during this financial year
include:
a. Court rules that section 44(8) of the Elections Act which provides for the
establishment of the Technical Committee to oversee elections Is unconstitutional
(Kenneth Otieno v Attorney General & Independent Electoral & Boundaries
Commission Petition No 127 of 2017)
b. Court rules that sections 39(2) and (3) of the Elections Act and regulations 83(2)
and 87(2) (c) of the Election (General) Regulations are unconstitutional, null and
void (Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others
[2017] eKLR Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Appeal 105 of 2017)
c. NEMA needs to introduce rules and regulations on the operation of dumpsites

as the provisions of the Environment Management and Co-ordination Act are
in violation of the right to a clean and healthy environment (African Centre for
Rights and Governance (ACRAG) &3 others v Municipal Council of Naivasha
Petition 50 of 2012)
d. Court declares sections [45(2) (3) and (6), 46(1) (b) (ii) and (c) and 48] of the
Elections Act and [27(2), (3) and (6) and 28(1)(b)(ii) and (c) ]of the County
Governments Act that Provide for the recall of an elected Member of Parliament
and Member of County Assembly unconstitutional in (Katiba Institute & another
v Attorney General & another Constitutional Petition No. 209 of 2016)
e. Court rules that the mandatory Nature of the death sentence provided under
section 204 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional (Francis Karioko Muruatetu &
another V Republic Petition No. 15 of 2015)
f. Section 7 And 10 (4) Of the Work Injuries Benefits Act 2007 Declared
Unconstitutional (Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & another Civil
Appeal No 133 of 2011)
g. Court declares that Parliament Should amend the County Governments Act
to provide for the removal and appointment of Deputy Governors (Mwamlole
Tchappu Mbwana v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 4 others
Election Petition No. 5 of 2017)
h. Court Declares Sections 3(3) and 11(2) of the Auctioneers Act unconstitutional
(Josephat Musila Mutual & 9 others v Attorney General & 3 others [2018] eKLR
Petition No 120 of 2017)
k. Monitoring Local and International Jurisprudence
Kenya Law continues to monitor and report on international jurisprudence from

various international and regional courts (East Africa Court of Justice, United Kingdom
Supreme Court, South African Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of India) and these
decisions are edited and posted on a weekly basis on the Kenya Law Blog Wakilishare.
During the year under review, a total of 32 decisions from the selected courts were
reported, especially those that bear a relevance to the Kenyan legal system. Some of
the issues highlighted include:
1) It is improper to detain children at the prisons before or after a finding of liability

against them. This was decided by the High Court of Malawi in Republic and
Children in Detention at Bvumbwe and Kachere Prisons Review Case No. 21 of 2017.
2) Expelling citizens from their Own Country infringes Article 12(2) of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This was decided by the EAST African
Court of Justice in Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. The United Republic of Tanzania African
Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights Application No. 012/2015.
3) Discrimination against goods of a partner state contravenes the Treaty and

the Protocols made thereunder. This was decided by the East African Court of
Justice in British American Tobacco (U) LTD v the Attorney General of the Republic of
Uganda, Application No.13 of 2017
4) Village councils incorporated as body corporates have legal capacity to institute

a case before the East African Court of Justice. This was decided by the East
African Court of Justice in Ololosokwan village council & 3 others v the Attorney
General of the United Republic of Tanzania
5) An occupier’s right to human dignity includes housing with basic human living
conditions, a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Daniels v
Scribante and Another CCT 50/16
6) Nursing care by a registered nurse in a care home is funded by the National

Health Service and includes all social care decided by the Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom in R (on the application of Forge Care Homes Ltd and Others) v
Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and Others 2017 UKSC 56
7) Deportation of foreign criminals before their appeals are heard is a violation of

their fundamental Rights decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in R (on
the application of Kiarie) & Another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 42
8) Detention of Illegal foreigners arbitrarily without automatic judicial intervention

and appearance in person before a court is unconstitutional, decided by the
Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of Lawyers for Human Rights v
Minister of Home Affairs and Others Case CCT 38/16
9) Kenya’s decision to Evict the Ogiek community from the Mau Forest was in
violation of its rights as an indigenous community that it ought to have protected
and effected as under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights decided
by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya,
Application No. 006/2012
1. Knowledge Sharing
Kenya Law is passionate about dissemination of legal information and has been able
to support various other institutes to benchmark with its standards. The following
knowledge sharing events were undertaken:
1) South Sudan – Hon Justice James Alala, Justice of the Supreme Court of South
Sudan on May 11, 2018. The Judiciary of South Sudan is setting up a directorate
to handle their law reporting function that will be headed by Justice Alala. The
Judge was taken through a training session on law reporting, law revision and
legal publishing.
2) Ghana- Mr Eric Apeadu, the Coordinator for Ghana LII visited and benchmarked
with Kenya Law between 27th and 29th June. He was taken through all the technical
departments as part of his knowledge sharing experience. Ghana LII is an NGO
that undertakes the compilation of the Ghana’s public legal information.
3) Tanzania – Kenya Law together with African LII participated in a training session
for Tanzania’s judiciary on law reporting and the compilation of legislative
databases. This was undertaken between 3rd and 5th June 2018 in Dares salaam.
2. Policy and Legal Framework
Kenya Law periodically undertakes the formulation, review and updating of its policy
documents to ensure conformity to all Government law, rules, regulations, policies and
circulars. In the financial year ended 2017/2018, Kenya Law has reviewed the following
policy documents:
a. Strategic Plan
A working draft of the Strategic Plan for the next period (2018 – 2022) has been
developed with input from management and all staff members. Kenya Law commenced
the process of sourcing for a consultant to finalize the Strategic Plan, prior to Kenya
Law undertaking stakeholder participation for the Plan.
b. Copyright License Regime
Kenya Law undertook a review of its copyright licensing regime with a view of
updating it to make it suitable and accommodative of the unique nature of content
provided by Kenya Law. This review ensured that the licences being deployed across
all of Kenya Law’s products and services enable it to secure its rights while facilitate
the sharing and dissemination of public legal information.
c. Kenya Law Policy and Procedure Manuals
Kenya Law developed, reviewed and updated several of its policies and procedures
manual. These are:
• The ICT Policy and Procedure Manual
• The Research and Development Policy and Procedure Manual
• The Human Resource and Policy Manual
• The Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plan
d. Legal Compliance and Corporate Governance
Kenya Law facilitated for the training of all management staff on Corporate Governance
by the Kenya Institute of Management so as to update and continually improve the
capacity of management staff in good corporate governance practices in all their
actions.
Kenya Law also begun the process of sourcing for a Legal and Governance Audit
consultant to undertake and review the levels of compliance of Kenya Law to the legal
and compliance requirements of the organization. This shall be finalized in the FY
2018/2019.
e. Review of the National Council for Law Reporting Act (No. 11 of 1994)
The National Council for Law Reporting Act has not had comprehensive amendments
effected on it since its passage in the year 1994. Kenya Law therefore commenced the
review of the Act and has generated initial proposals through staff members and the
management. The process will be finalised in the next reporting period.
3. Institutional Development
Kenya Law is committed to the continuous improvement and development of the organizations
capacity to generate, allocate and use human and financial resources effectively towards the
achievement of its mandate. In the financial year ended 2017/18 Kenya Law undertook the
following activities towards this:
a. Quality Management System
Kenya Law committed to undertake the development of a Quality Management

System (QMS) within its Strategic Plan and the organization has engaged a consultant
to develop and deploy a QMS system. This activity commenced in July 2016, and will
culminate in Kenya Law being certified as being ISO 9001:2015 compliant. All the
systems and procedures of the organization have been documented and validated and
their implementation is on-going. Both an Internal Audit and a Management Review
meeting were undertaken in the F|Y 2017/18. Based on the results of the Management
Review Meeting, it was determined that there was need for changes to the processes
and procedures of various departments. Kenya Law shall undertake a second internal
quality audit of departments prior to inviting surveillance auditors to review and audit
the organization for ISO 2001:2015 certification.
b. Performance Management and Measurement Understanding
Kenya Law continues to track and report on its achievement of targets under the
Performance Management and Measurement Understanding that was signed with the
Judiciary. The reports for all four quarters were submitted to the Judiciary within the
financial year. The results for the financial year 2015/2016 were announced on June
8, 2017 Kenya Law once again achieved a “Very Good” score. On achieving its core
mandate, which includes the tracking of jurisprudence from the superior courts of
record and the revision and consolidation of the Laws of Kenya, Kenya Law achieved
99 per cent and scored 100 per cent in all other perspectives, including customer
relations and innovation and learning.
c. Partnerships and Donors
Kenya Law is keen on maintaining good relations with all its donors and stakeholders.
In the year under review, Kenya Law partnered with the following institutions towards
achieving its mandate:
1) Judicial Performance Improvement Project (JPIP): Kenya Law has in the past year
worked closely with JPIP towards the provision of various goods and services.
These included: Provision of office premises for Kenya Law; Procurement of a
premium case law database and Online Editor; Printing for various Kenya Law
publications; Purchase of server and heavy duty printer; Simplification and
Translation of Laws. Kenya Law was one of the best performing intuitions in
terms of absorption of its budget under the project.
2) Digital Divide Data (DDD): Kenya Law entered into a partnership with the
Digital Divide Data (DDD), an organisation that delivers digital content, data
and research services to clients worldwide for digitization of Reports from
Parliamentary Committees Votes, Petitions and Proceedings and reports from
Commissions of Inquiry. The process involved:
a) Scanning of hard copy documents into PDF format in black and white.
b) Indexing of all the scanned documents
c) Upload the digitized documents into a Content Management System (CMS).
This was a bid by Kenya Law to enrich its website by providing public legal
information in a digital format. The information was uploaded onto the Kenya
Law website. Based on this partnership a total of 230,000 pages of Reports from
Parliamentary Committees, Votes Petitions and Proceedings and Reports from
Commissions of Inquiry were digitized and made available on the Kenya Law
website.
d. Kenya’s National Assembly
Kenya Law partnered with the National Assembly to develop the National Assembly
Factsheets and other resources for use during the induction of legislators in September
2017 and also as resources for general use by staff. The documents included Speaker’s
Rulings for the 10th (2008-2012) and 11th (2013-2017) Parliaments, resources on
procedure, general factsheets on the workings of parliament, information on law
making and budget processes, the roles and functions of key directorates and
departments of the National Assembly and departmental manuals among others. The
National Assembly decided to partner with Kenya Law owing to the high standards it
has set in publishing.
4. Infrastructure Management
Kenya Law relies on ICT to catalyse the dissemination of public legal information. There is
therefore a need to always maintain and replace ICT equipment which host and disseminate
all of Kenya’s public legal information. In this regard the organisation purchased assorted
hardware & corresponding software in line with industry best practices of phasing out
machines that were obsolete.
Kenya Law also upgraded its internet bandwidth from 10Mbps to 20Mbps so as to ensure
faster access to online services. This has also enabled staff members to work smarter as a
majority of Kenya Law’s system are web based.
5. Challenges and Risks In The FY 2017/2018
The challenges and risks faced by Kenya Law in the year included:
1. Lack of adequate human resource to effectively carry out various Kenya Law functions
2. Lack of adequate infrastructural resources
3. Inadequate training for its members of staff based on the staff training needs assessment
In order to ensure that we keep up with the changes in the industry
4. Limited financial allocation. Thus not all activities that were planned for were carried
out due to financial constraints
5. Delays in the procurement
6. Sourcing and collection of County legislation: Counties are yet to establish a County
Gazette as required by the County Governments Act which causes delay in publishing
the County Legislation.
7. Sourcing for funding for projects such as the translation of the Laws into Kiswahili.
8. Following up with the layout issues for the outsourced books. External partners
proved a challenge in observing timelines for products outsourced to them especially
in layout services.
9. Lack of Proper Offsite Backup - There is need for Kenya Law to have an offsite backup
solution especially for its critical data. This will ensure that service provision is not
interrupted in case of any downtime.
10.15 KENYA LAW REFORMS COMMISSION
The Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC) has a statutory and ongoing role of reviewing
all the law of Kenya to ensure that it is modernized, relevant and harmonized with the
Constitution. Following the promulgation of the Constitution in 2010, KLRC has an additional
mandate of preparing new legislation to give effect to the Constitution.
In addition, both the County Governments Act, No. 17 of 2012 and the Kenya Law Reform
Commission Act, No. 19 of 2013 require KLRC to assist county governments and ministries/
departments/agencies (MDAs) in the preparation and reform of their legislation respectively.
In satisfying this mandate, KLRC recognises that the Constitution requires new laws to
ensure that county governments have adequate support to enable them to perform their
functions and MDAs have the requisite legal frameworks under which they may effectively
execute their mandate.
During the period under review, KLRC was able to achieve the following:
1. The KLRC, Pursuant to its mandate under Clause 5(6)(b) of the Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution, continued to develop legislation required to implement the Constitution.
2. Assisted a number of MDAs with the review and harmonization of their respective
legislative frameworks with the Constitution.
3. Provided technical assistance to a number of county governments with regard to the

reform or amendment of their laws.
4. Gave advisory opinions to Parliament, MDAs and county governments.
5. Proposed amendments to various laws after receiving reports from the National
Council of Law Reporting on court judgments touching on law reform.
Challenges
1. Undertaking proper public participation/stakeholder consultation in view of limited

funding.
2. Late submission of instructions from MDAs and county governments.
3. Lack of understanding on scope of devolved functions at both levels of government.
4. Inadequate financial resources to enable KLRC deliver on its mandate.
5. Occasional tight timelines by MDAs and county governments.
6. Strict timelines pegged on the date of the general elections during the review of
electoral laws.
The Table below sets out the draft legislation and policies that KLRC worked on in the FY
2017-2018:
Table 1: Draft legislation and policies that KLRC worked on in FY2017/18
NO. BILLS STATUS

1. A. BILLS DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED (NATIONAL)
2. Energy Bill, 2018 Completed
3. Social Protection Bill, 2018 Completed
4. Older Persons Bill, 2018 Completed
5. National Crime Research Centre Bill, 2018 Completed
NO. BILLS STATUS
6. Kenya Institute of Special Education Bill, 2018 Completed
7. Community Groups (Registration) Bill, 2018 Completed
8. County Attorney Bill, 2018 Completed
9. Nurses (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
10. Law of Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
11. Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
12. Insolvency (Amendment) Bill, 2017 Completed
13. Library Services and Amendments Bill, 2018 Completed
14. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 2018 Completed
15. Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
16. Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
17. Employment (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
18. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
19. Kenya Medical Training (Amendment) Bill, 2017 Completed
20. Victim Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
21. National Volunteerism Bill, 2018 Ongoing
22. Social Assistance Bill, 2018 Ongoing
23. Slum Upgrading and Prevention Bill, 2018 Ongoing
24. Water Towers Bill, 2018 Ongoing
25. Kenya Food and Drug Authority Bill, 2018 Ongoing
26. National Basins Development Authority Bill, 2018 Ongoing
27. Data Protection Bill, 2018 Ongoing
28. Parliamentary Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
29. Intergovernmental Relations (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
30. County Government (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
31. Forest Conservation Management (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
32. Labour Institutions (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
33. Employment (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
34. Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
35. Forests Conversation and Management (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
B. SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED (NATIONAL)
36. Controller of Budget (Approval of Withdrawal of Funds) Regulations, 2018 Completed
37. Inter-governmental Relations (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Regulations, 2018 Completed
38. Micro and Small Enterprises (Association) Regulations, 2018 Completed
39. Micro and Small Enterprises (Worksite) Regulations, 2018 Completed
40. Supreme Court (Presidential Election Petition) Rules, 2017 Completed
41. Radiation Board Regulations, 2018 Completed
42. Insolvency (Amendment) Regulations, 2017 Completed
43. Public Service Commission Regulations, 2017 Completed
44. Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2016 Completed
45. Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules, 2017 Completed
46. Political Parties Dispute Tribunal Regulations, 2017 Completed
47. Elections (Party Primaries and Party Lists) Regulations, 2017 Completed
48. Election (Voter Education) Regulations, 2017 Completed
NO. BILLS STATUS
49. Elections (Technology) Regulations, 2017 Completed
50. Election (Voter Registration)(Amendment) Regulations, 2017 Completed
51. Election (General) Regulations)(Amendment) Regulations, 2017 Completed
52. Small Claims Courts Rules, 2017 Completed
53. Victim Protection Regulations, 2017 Completed
54. Victim Protection Fund Regulations, 2017 Completed
55. Intergovernmental Dispute Regulations, 2017 Completed
56. Kenya National Commission for UNESCO Act Regulations, 2018 Completed
57. Nurses Regulations, 2018 Ongoing
58. Companies (Beneficial Ownership Information) Regulations, 2018 Ongoing
59. HIV & AIDS (Privacy Guidelines), Regulations 2018 Ongoing
60. HIV & AIDS (Prevention and Control) Model Legislation Ongoing
C. BILLS DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED (COUNTY) STATUS
61. Kitui County Investment Corporation Bill, 2018. Completed
62. Migori County Health Services Bill, 2018 Completed
63. Nairobi City County Corporations Bill, 2018 Completed
64. Nairobi City County Child Care Facilities Bill, 2018 Completed
65. Nairobi City County Revenue Administration Bill, 2018 Completed
66. Nairobi City County Licensing Bill, 2018 Completed
67. Nyamira Water Resources Bill, 2018 Completed
68. Taita Taveta County Sand Harvesting (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
69. Nakuru County Revenue Allocation Bill, 2017 Completed
70. Meru County Agriculture Bill, 2018 Ongoing
71. Nairobi City County Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Ongoing
72. County Solid Waste Management Model Bill, 2018 Ongoing
D. SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION DEVELOPED OR REVIEWED (COUNTY)
73. Public Finance Management (Bomet County Mortgage State and Public Officers Scheme) Completed
Regulations, 2018
74. Public Finance Management (Kakamega County Youth and Sports Fund) Regulations, 2018 Completed
75. Public Finance Management (Trans Nzoia County Executive Mortgage Fund) Regulations, Completed
2018
76. Public Finance Management (Kitui Car Loan and Mortgage Regulations) 2018 Completed
77. Public Finance Management (Makueni Bursary Fund) Regulations 2018 Completed
78. Public Finance Management (Baringo County Micro and Small Enterprises) Regulations, Completed
2018
79. Public Finance (Makueni Bursary Fund) Regulations, 2018 Completed
80. Bomet Car Loan Regulations, 2018 Completed
81. Trans Nzoia Car Loan Regulations, 2018 Completed
82. Kericho Trade Regulations, 2018 Completed
83. Kericho Cooperative Regulations, 2018 Completed
84. Kericho County Trade Licenses Regulations, 2018 Completed
85. Kisii County Bursaries Fund Regulations, 2018 Completed
86. Kitui County Health Insurance Cover Regulations, 2018 Completed
87. Nyamira County Co-operative Development Fund Regulations, 2018 Completed
88. Busia County Co-operative Enterprise Development Fund Regulations, 2018 Completed
NO. BILLS STATUS
89. Tharaka Nithi County Assembly Car Loan Fund Regulations, 2018 Completed
90. Tharaka Nithi County Assembly Housing Fund Regulations, 2018 Completed
91. Tharaka Nithi County Bursaries (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
92. Tharaka Nithi County Emergency Fund (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Completed
93. Tharaka Nithi County Trade Fund Regulations, 2018 Completed
94. Taita Taveta County Sand Harvesting (Conservation and Utilization) Regulations, 2018 Completed
95. Kitui County Climate Change Fund Regulations, 2018 Completed
96. Bungoma County Assembly (Employees’ Mortgage Scheme Fund) Regulations, 2018 Completed
97. Public Finance (Bungoma County Disaster Management Fund) Regulations, 2017 Completed
98. Public Finance (Bungoma County Youth and Women Empowerment Fund) Regulations, Completed
2017
99. Public Finance (Bungoma County Trade Loan Fund) Regulations, 2017 Completed
100. Public Finance (Nandi County Assembly Car Loan and Mortgage (Members Scheme Fund) Completed
Regulations, 2017
101. Public Finance (County Assembly of Nyeri Car loan and Mortgage (Members) Scheme Fund Completed
(Amendment) Regulations, 2017
E. POLICIES REVIEWED (NATIONAL)
102. National Policy on Culture Ongoing
103. National Maritime Transport Policy Ongoing
104. Kenya Food and Drugs Authority Policy Ongoing
105. Kenya Water Towers Coordination Policy, 2018 Ongoing
106. Human Rights Business Approach Policy Ongoing
107. Uniform Citation System Policy Ongoing
F. POLICIES REVIEWED (COUNTY)

108. Turkana County Agricultural Sector Policy, 2018 Completed
109. Isiolo County Disaster Management Policy, 2018 Ongoing
110. County Solid Waste Management Model Policy, 2018 Ongoing
G. GUIDELINES REVIEWED (NATIONAL)

111. Handbook on Police Reforms Completed
112. Popular version of the Political Parties Act Completed
H. RESEARCH
113. Research paper on Articles 2(5) and (6) of the Constitution Completed
114. Marrakesh Treaty National Plan of Action, 2018 Completed
*Completed” refers to draft legislation or policy finalized by KLRC and submitted either to
the Attorney-General, an instructing MDA or a county government.
10.16 COMMISSION ON ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
The Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) also known as the “Office of the
Ombudsman” is a Constitutional Commission established under Article 59 (4) and Chapter
Fifteen of the Constitution, and the Commission on Administrative Justice Act, 2011.
The Commission has a mandate, inter-alia, to investigate any conduct in state affairs or
any act or omission in public administration in any sphere of Government and complaints
of abuse of power, unfair treatment, manifest injustice or unlawful, oppressive, unfair or
unresponsive official conduct.
The following activities here undertaken during the reporting period.
1. Handled 54,207 complaints out of which 49,938 were resolved which represented a
resolution rate of 92%. The complaints related to service issues such as unfair treatment,
administrative injustice, abuse of power, inefficiency, delay, manifest injustice and
unresponsive official conduct. Through this, the Commission was provided a platform
to the public for resolution of their grievances.
2. Conducted legal aid clinics with a view to providing free legal and advisory services to
the poor and needy who cannot afford the services of a lawyer for the conduct of their
cases thereby enhancing access to justice. The clinics were conducted in Makueni,
Elgeyo Marakwet, Narok, Nandi and Nyeri counties and were attended by over 600
participants.
3. Enhanced public administration through training of public officers and provision of

technical assistance in the development of effective complaint management system
and access to information infrastructure. Specifically, the Commission trained 2,633
officers drawn from 220 institutions across diverse sectors. The training targeted
complaints officers, senior managers and frontline officers, and focused on, inter alia,
best practices in complaints management, principles of public administration and
access to information.
4. Issued four advisory opinions and proposals on matters relating to good governance
and public administration. The advisories provide an avenue to the Commission
to recommend preventive measures (an early warning system) to address
maladministration before it happens. The advisories deal with a variety of issues with
the objective of improving public administration and promoting good governance.
Notably, the Commission issued an advisory on the handling of employees of
county governments by Governors following media reports of intimidation, threats,
suspension and dismissal of some county employees by some Governors on the
perception that the employees had not supported the governors’ political bids during
the 2017 elections.
5. Visited five remand facilities to receive complaints from in-mates and provide advisory
services in line with section 51 of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act. These
were Nakuru Women Prison, Kakamega Women Prison, Kapenguria Prison (Men and
Women), Langata Maximum Prison (Women) and Manyani Maximum Prison (Men).
The Commission received a total of 202 complaints and provided legal advice to the
inmates on various issues. The Commission also interacted with Prison Officers on
their role in facilitating the prisoners’ right to seek redress of their grievances.
6. Enforced the Access to information Act through review of 39 applications against

decisions of certain public and private bodies. In addition, the Commission
mainstreamed access to information requirements in its Guidelines under the
Performance Contracting system for implementation by public bodies. The Guidelines
were also shared with different county government for adoption. This ensured an
exponential development of access to information infrastructure and processing of a
total of 2,572 requests for access by public bodies. Further, the Commission sensitized
various publics, including over 2,000 public officers drawn from the national and
county governments and thousands of members of the public during various outreach
fora. Additionally, the Commission developed tools on access to information such a
handbook on best practices, guide on proactive disclosure, citizen guide on the Act as
well as various templates for full operationalization of the Act.
7. Created awareness on administrative justice and access to information through

media engagements, Ombudsman Mashinani (community structures in informal
settlements) and development of Information, Education and Communication (IEC)
materials.
In spite of the above milestones, the Commission encountered the following challenges:
1. Budgetary constraints: Inadequate funding continues to be a major challenge to the

Commission. The funds allocated by the Exchequer is not sufficient to cater for all the
needs of the Commission particularly in light of the increasing number of complaints
thereby overstretching its capacity to render services efficiently.
2. Delays in releasing the revised estimates and exchequer: This hindered timely
implementation of some of the planned activities hence affecting the absorption rate.
This is further exacerbated by the frequent downtime of the IFMIS and e-Procurement
which affected and delayed the procurement of goods.
3. Pooling of publicity and awareness budget to Government Advertising Agency (GAA):

The Commission encountered challenges is accessing the funds held by the GAA since
the National Treasury did not indicate how much was earmarked for the Commission.
4. Inadequate staffing: Whereas approved staff establishment is 336, the Commission has
only 70 members of staff. This shortage continues to cause a strain on effective service
delivery to the public and hinders decentralisation of the Ombudsman services.
5. Unresponsiveness from public institutions: Impunity remains the biggest obstacle to

quick resolution of complaints. A number of public institutions and officers were cited
for unresponsiveness in the period under review.
6. Enforcement mechanisms and high public expectations:The mechanisms for enforcing

the Commission’s decisions, determinations and recommendations are inadequate.
While the Commission’s mandate is derived from the Constitution and the Act, there
is minimal goodwill from public institutions to comply with the same.
10.17 INDEPENDENT POLICE OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY
Introduction
Background
The Authority was established on 18th November 2011 through IPOA Act No. 35 of 2011 to
provide for civilian oversight over the work of the police in Kenya.
Complaints Management
Between July 2017 and June 2018, two thousand three hundred and thirty nine (2,339)
complaints were received and cleared through the Complaints Intake Committee. Out of the
received complaints, 20.6 per cent (482) complaints were recommended for investigations
by the Authority, 119 were referred to IAU, 90 to National Police Service Commission
(NPSC) and 385 to NPS. Five hundred and forty one (541), 23.1 per cent complaints did
not have adequate information and were referred back to the complainants to provide the
information while 391 complaints (16.7%) were resolved with the respective police facilities.
Cumulatively, since the Authority’s inception, ten thousand three hundred and eighty one
(10,381) complaints have been received as shown in figure 1:
Figure 1: Trend on number of complaints received per year
Trend on clearance1 rate on complaints received by the Authority has been improving over
the years as illustrated in figure 2 below. The Authority is committed to improve the rate to
100% in FY 2018/2019.
Figure 2: Trend on clearance rate of complaints over the years
1 Refers to the point at which recommendations and subsequent referral is made for complaints ap-
praised by the CIC (Case Intake Committee).
Source of the Complaints and Admission Status
During the report period, complaints were received from various sources as shown in table
1 below. It is clear that the largest proportion of the complaints is directly from the public
and the least (4.2%) from the police. It is worth noting that the 11.8 % from the state and
non-state agencies were on behalf of aggrieved members of the public.
Table 1: Sources of Complaints
SOURCE NUMBER PROPORTION (%)

Complaints by the public 1742 74.5
Complaints by police officers 98 4.2
Complaints by non-state actors 166 7.1
Complaints by state actors 110 4.7
Complaints from IPOA’s Own Motion 223 9.5
Total 2,339
2.2 Complaints Lodging Modes
During the FY 2017/18, complainants who lodged complaints directly in the IPOA offices
(walk-ins) remained dominant at 39.1% followed by letters and website/email at 26.1%
and 18.2% respectively while police notification lagged at 0.6% as shown in figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Level of complaints lodging modes
Table 2: Complaints lodging mode
Complaint Walk-in Letters Website/ Phone Media (All Own Police Total
lodging mode Email Forms) Motion Notification
Proportion (%) 39.1% 26.1% 18.2% 6.2% 2.2% 7.5% 0.6% 100%
Total 914 611 426 145 52 176 15 2,339
Nature of Complaints Received
During the period under review, the Authority received complaints whose nature varied as
shown in the figure 4 below. Since inception the number of complaints on police inaction
keeps increasing. As at 30th June 2018 there were 759 complaints on police inaction followed
by 354 complaints on police misconduct. These would require deliberate interventions by
all stakeholders in policing to address the challenges. The summary is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Nature of complaints received
Recommendations on Complaints by IPOA Case Intake Committee
During the year, the Case Intake Committee2 (CIC) appraised the complaints received and
recommended 482 for investigations by IPOA, 119 referred to IAU and 90 to NPSC. One
2 CIC is IPOA’s internal structure that appraises the received complaints and recommends for subse-
quent action to IPOA and other Agencies
hundred and seventy one (171) complaints were referred to the inspection and monitoring
directorate within the Authority to undertake inspections of the police facilities in question
as well as monitor police operations on the subjects mentioned by the complainants.
Figure 5 below illustrates the recommendations made by CIC.
Figure 5: CIC recommendations
Table 2: CIC recommendations
ENTITY 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14

Recommended for Investigations and Inspections 28.1% 40.1% 38% 37% 34%
within the Authority
Referral to NPS 16.5% 4.5% 25%
Referral to Internal Affairs Unit 5.1% 15.7% 17% 32% 20%
Referral to National Police Service Commission 3.8% 4.6% 9% 12% 11%
Referral to Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission 4.8% 5.4% 1% 1% 0%
Referral to ODPP 4.5% 1.1% 2% 1% 1%

Closed files 3% 5.4% 2% 18%
Figure 6: Proportion of complaints actioned to various entities
Investigations Management
During the financial year 2017/18, one hundred and ninety seven (197) investigations were
completed covering 35 counties. In the same period, twenty-seven (27) files were forwarded
to the ODPP. The nature of cases submitted to the ODPP varied but mainly included criminal
charges murder, assault, and use of excessive force. There were also cases, which were non-
criminal in nature such as public inquest.
As at 30th June 2018, a cumulative number of 53 cases were in court; forty eight (48) active
court cases whose investigations were initiated by IPOA and five others, which IPOA was
monitoring because they involved police misconduct. Forty nine (49) case files were closed
without the need for further action owing to various reasons namely; cases which were
being investigated by another agency or cases where police have already instituted criminal
action against a police officer or civil proceedings were ongoing in relation to the subject
matter. Cases were also closed without need for further action where the complainant
withdrew the complaints and the withdrawal accepted by the Authority or due to lack of
cooperation from the complainant or victim. Closure of cases also occurred due to lack of
evidence, resolution reached through other means such as arbitration or negotiation or no
misconduct or criminal offence was identified.
Status of Cases
The breakdown given table 4 below shows the status of investigations since the establishment
of IPOA as at 30th June 2018.
Table 3: Status of cases since inception
STATUS NO. OF CASES

Cases currently under investigations 1,476
Completed investigations 790
Cases under initial assessment 2929
Cases forwarded to ODPP 105
Cases in court 53
Completion of investigations is as shown in figure 7 below:
Figure 7: Trends in completed of investigations since Inception of IPOA

Challenges And Recommendations
Key challenges experienced by the Authority during the reporting period included lack of
cooperation from some Officers Commanding Station (OCSs) and county commandants
during inspections of police premises and investigations, delay in handling of complaints
referred to IAU among others. The challenges and recommendations are stipulated in Table
5.
Table 4: Challenges and recommendations

CHALLENGES RECOMMENDATIONS
§ Non-cooperation from some OCS § NPS leadership should hold the individual
and County commandants continues officers accountable on non-cooperation.
to impede the progress of IPOA Disciplinary measures should also be taken
investigations, monitoring and on such officers.
inspections of police premises
§ IPOA should sensitize the police officers on
its mandate to enhance cooperation during
investigations, monitoring and inspection
activities.
§ Delay in processing of complaints § The Inspector general of police should
referred to IAU enhance the IAU capacity so that complaints
can be dealt with in time.
§ Police proceeding to undertake § Stakeholder’s engagement (IPOA, ODPP and

investigations and recommending NPS) to resolve the matter
inquests before informing the
Authority and thus legally barring
IPOA’s investigations
§ Failure to have MoUs with critical § IPOA to initiate the process of signing MOUs
stakeholders such as mobile with respective stakeholders for successful
telephone service providers, investigations
Government chemist and ODPP
to assist with investigations and
prosecution
10.18 WITNESS PROTECTION AGENCY
Introduction
The Kenya’s Witness Protection Agency (WPA) is a Body Corporate established under the
Kenya Witness Protection Act, 2006 (Cap 79 Laws of Kenya) amended by the Witness
Protection (Amendment) Acts No. 2 of 2010 and No. 45 of 2016. The object and purpose of
the Agency is to provide special protection, on behalf of the State, to persons in possession
of important information and who are facing potential risk or intimidation due to their co-
operation with prosecution and other law enforcement agencies.
Witness protection is a fundamental human right. Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya,

provides for the protection of witnesses and vulnerable persons in the interests of fair
hearing before courts and tribunals. It also provides for enactment of legislation providing
for the protection, rights, and welfare of victims of offences. The Witness Protection Agency
provides the framework and procedures for giving special protection to such persons to
ensure an effective and efficient administration of justice in the country.
Status Summary
The WPA continues to play a key role in offering security to witnesses as a basic human
right in line with the constitutional dispensation and the National Development
Agenda. The Agency adopts a reformist approach in the discharge of its mandate
with the increasing emergence of complex crimes and public awareness about their
fundamental rights. The Agency hence plays a significant role in enhancing the
administration of justice. The implementation of the Programme is covert in nature.
It is premised on strict confidentiality and executed as per Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) designed in accordance with internationally recognised practices.
Referral Partners
The Agency receives referrals for witness protection from various stakeholders in the
administration of justice including; National Police Service, Office of Director of Public
Prosecutions, Kenya National Commision on Human Rights, Kenya Prisons Service, Women
Rights Awareness Programme, Federation of Women Lawyers, Coalition on Violence Against
Women, Commission on Administrative Justice, Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission,
Independent Policing Oversight Authority, International Justice Mission, International
Commisson of Jurists, and Equality Now, among others.
WPP Operations
Pursuant to the provisions of section 4(a) of the Witness Protection Act, the Agency has
established and maintains a witness protection programme to protect the safety and
welfare of the protected persons. The following measures are employed depending on the
circumstances of each case, the danger and threat involved among other considerations:
1. Physical and armed protection
2. Relocation
3. Change of identity
4. In - camera hearings
5. Use of pseudo names
6. Redaction of identifying information
7. Use of Video Link
8. Employing measures to obscure or distort the identity of the witness.
9. Use of witness box
Current status of witness protection
During the FY 2017/18 period, the Agency received a total of 227 new applications into the
Witness Protection Programme compared to 210 during the FY 2016/17 period. The total
number of applications for admission to the programme increased from 210 during the
previous periods to 227 applications in the period under review.
Table 1: Comparative growth summary of Witness Protection Programme Hesitate
DESCRIPTION 2009/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 TOTAL

Applications received 60 72 130 207 217 210 227 1123
for witness protection
Applicants admitted 10 18 55 97 105 102 100 487
into WPP
Total number of 44 76 242 198 266 360 187 1373
dependants
Applications closed 50 54 75 110 112 108 127 636
- interventions made
and advice given on
the right authority to
report the matter
Witnesses who have 5 8 34 39 72 104 102 360
been discharged
Witnesses harmed in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
the programme
fallen out of the
programme
Applicants who have 9 11 29 14 82 110 54 309
successfully testified
died due to natural
causes
During the period under review, 11 cases involving witnesses who are protected were
concluded and judgment made compared to eighteen (18) cases during the 2016-2017.
Convictions in the period under review were obtained in 8 cases compared to five (5) cases
in 2016-2017.
The convictions ranged from death sentence, life imprisonment to a number of years in
prison representing a 73 % conviction rate when compared to 28 % conviction rate for 2016-
2017. A summary of the comparative growth of the Witness protection programme since
inception is outlined in table 1 and the regional spread shown in table 2 below:
Table 2: Regional spread of admitted witnesses
REGION 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Nairobi 5 11 22 46 19 29
Coast and North Eastern 9 15 38 29 36 36
Nyanza and Western 2 10 4 25 39 34
Rift Valley 2 1 4 27 22 15
Central and Eastern 0 6 10 29 23 13
Witness Protection Programme summary
The status of witnesses in the Witness Protection Programme as at 30th June 2018 was as
follows:
Table 3: Witness Protection Programme & witness Protection Summary
No. Description No. of

witnesses
1 Safe house 45
2 In court 76
3 Children home 6
Total 127
Key Achievements
1. Stakeholder Partnership forums
The Agency managed to network with other stakeholders and partners in the justice
sector. This included participation in various CUC forums held in Milimani, Kibera,
Kakamega, Kajiado, Homabay, Hamisi and Butali. The Agency also participated in the
LSK Awareness Week and the KNCHR Referral Partners network.
2. Regional sensitization campaigns
In a bid to reach out to key stakeholders of the Agency, regional sensitization campaigns
were conducted regionally in various counties to sensitize Judges/Magistrates, ODPP
and Police Commanders. The counties visited included Nakuru, Nyeri, Meru, Embu,
Uasin Gishu, Kakamega, Bungoma,Kisii,Nyamira, Migori, Machakos,Makueni and
Kitui.
Deputy Director in charge of Corporate Affairs sensitizes Police Commanders at Eldoret Police station
in Uasin Gishu County during the regional sensitization campaigns carried out by the Agency.
3. International Conferences and seminars
Strong international partnerships saw the Agency participate in the Conference for
the Development of Children’s Social, emotional survival and wellbeing from 28th-
January – 18th February 2018 in Haifa, Israel; and 19th Europol Conference in Maryland
USA from 16th - 17th May 2018. The Director/Chief Executive attended the sixteenth
session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, from 4th – 14th
December 2017. The Assembly provided an opportunity for engaging on matters critical
to the strengthening of the international criminal Justice system and the building of a
stronger and responsive International Criminal Court.
4. Review of the Witness Protection Act
The Agency with the help of an expert from the Kenya Law Reform Commission
reviewed the Witness Protection Act 2006. The outcome of the review was a draft
bill with proposals for future amendments. The review was a follow up to the 2016
amendments, to make proposals for further amendments to Act in line with the ever
changing trends in witness protection.
5. Guidelines on reciprocal arrangements
Guidelines were drafted to aid the operationalization of Section 29A of the Witness
Protection Act. The section makes provision for reciprocal witness protection
arrangements with competent foreign authorities. The guidelines are intended to
guide the making of regulations to give full effect to the provisions of the Act on
reciprocal arrangements with foreign authorities. The guidlines will be finalised in the
next reporting period.
6. Development of curriculum for training of stakeholders
A curriculum for witness protection course and another one for training of external
stakeholders was developed. The development of the curricula was informed by the
need to have a standardized reference point for the training of witness stakeholders.
The Agency appreciates the diversity of its stakeholders and need to a common training
reference point for specialized training of stakeholders while appreciating the role
each stakeholder plays in helping execute the unique mandate of the Agency.
7. Application of court orders.
The Agency maintained its commitment of timely preparation and filing of court papers
and upheld the commitment of 100% court attendance for all matters. The protection
orders were obtained in accordance with section 14 of the witness protection act.
8. Promotion of National Cohesion and Values
The Agency organized an awareness and capacity building workshop on national values
and principals of governance. The Agency continued to take measures and to make
progress to realize National values by upholding public participation, inclusiveness
equality, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalized in the provision of
Witness Services.
Challenges
The Agency continues to face challenges in its operations. Key among them are:
1. Lack of appropriate infrastructure in the courtroom:

Most courtrooms lack appropriate architecture such as witness protection boxes and
screens to safeguard and conceal witnesses under protection when they are giving
their testimony. There are also no separate entry alleys to courtrooms which endanger
the protected witnesses since they access the courtroom using the same entry as the
accused.
2. Lengthy trials:
The slow pace of trials contributed immensely to the exorbitant costs of sustaining
witnesses and their dependents in the Witness Protection programme.
3. Release of prior evidence to the accused:
Article 50 (2) (j) of the constitution requires the accused person to be informed in
advance of the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on and to have reasonable
access to the evidence. This exposes witnesses to danger and scares them from
testifying.
4. Bond and/or bail policy:
Article 50 (1)(h) provides that a person arrested can be released on bond or bail, on
reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons
not to be released. This provision makes many witnesses fear to give evidence.
5.
The limited budget from National Treasury had an effect in both human resource
capacity and operational targets. For instance, the continued admission of witnesses
in the programme without corresponding increase of enabling facilities such as
vehicles hindered smooth movement of Protection Officers to visit witnesses in the
programme.
6. Devolution of witness protection services:
Article 6 of the Constitution provides for the devolution of services to all counties.
Currently, the Agency is in only 3 counties; Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu and
expansion has been hampered due to funding challenges.
10.19 NATIONAL TRANSPORT AND SAFETY AUTHORITY
The National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) was established through an Act of
Parliament; Act Number 33 on 26th October 2012. The objective of forming the Authority was
to harmonize the operations of the key road transport departments and help in effectively
managing the road transport sub-sector and minimizing loss of lives through road crashes.
In the FY2017/18, the total number of traffic victims stood at 2957, marking an increase from
2834 in the FY2016/17. As shown in Table 4.8, the month of May recorded the highest traffic
casualty rate, closely followed by August, November, and December. As Table 1 shows,
pedestrians form the bulk of traffic victims, accounting for nearly 50 per cent of victims,
followed by passengers and motorcyclists, in that order.
In the period under review, NTSA has been engaging in a number of activities to streamline
operations in the transport sector. This has entailed partnership with the Judiciary and the
Police. Consequently, significant achievements have been realized including improvement
on speed limit enforcement on Nairobi-Naivasha Highway and other key roads; and reduced
drunk-driving among motorist.
Table 1: Categories of fatal Victims FY2016/17 and FY2017/18
MONTHS 2015/2016 2016/2017 VAR %VAR

July 216 214 -2 -0.9
August 240 228 -12 -5.0
September 218 211 -7 -3.2
October 230 219 -11 -4.8
November 190 240 50 26.3
December 289 356 67 23.2
January 253 234 -19 -7.5
February 227 257 30 13.2
March 269 240 -29 -10.8
April 265 269 4 1.5
May 259 247 -12 -4.6
June 178 242 64 36.0
TOTAL 2834 2957 123 4.3
Source: NTSA
Figure 1: Categories of Traffic Victims
Table 4.8: Categories of Traffic Victims
CATERGORIES F/Y 2015/2016 F/Y 2016/2017 VAR %VAR

Pedestrians 1021 1088 67 6.6
Passengers 743 735 -8 -1.1
Motor Cyclist 465 532 67 14.4
Drivers 319 319 0 0.0
Pillion Passengers 232 221 -11 -4.7
Pedal Cyclist 54 62 8 14.8
TOTAL 2834 2957 123 4.3
Source NTSA
Figure 2: Categories of Traffic Victims
Challenges facing NTSA
1. Court injunctions Traffic Act (Minor Offences) Rules were Gazetted on 23rd September,
2016. Implementation was challenged by Kenya Union of Co-operatives being Nairobi
HCJR where exparte orders were granted. Similarly, driving Schools and Instructor
rules which are yet to be gazetted have been challenged vide Nakuru Petition 9 of 2016.
2. Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI) reports should be adopted by the courts since this
is expert witness. The courts have been issuing orders to revoke enforcement of the
opinion by MVIs.
3. Harmonization of penalties to traffic offenders in regard to revocation and suspension

of driving licenses. NTSA revokes licenses for drunk driving offender and after a while
court demands for the same license for cancellation.
4. Corruption among traffic enforcement officers and court prosecutors.
5. Court outcomes on traffic offences that do not serve to deter traffic offenders.
6. Standardization of court judgment on traffic offences across the country. Different

courts have been disposing off traffic offences cases differently encouraging repeat
offenders e.g. drunk drivers, drivers causing fatal crashes.
10.20 NATIONAL CRIME RESEARCH CENTRE
The National Crime Research Centre (NCRC) is a State Corporation under The Ministry of
Interior and Coordination of National Government established by an Act of Parliament, the
National Crime Research Act 1997 CAP 62 Laws of Kenya.
The Centre is mandated to carry out research into the causes of crime, its prevention and
to disseminate the research findings and recommendations to Government Agencies
concerned with the administration of criminal justice, NCRC’s stakeholders and
the public. The establishment of NCRC is in line with the International best practice
where research has provided critical information on what works to impact on crime
and disorder and has helped to generate programmes that can assist criminal justice
agencies.
The Centre’s activities, achievements and challenges in the last FY 2017/2018 are outlined
here below.
Activities and achievements
a. Study Report on “Borderland Crimes and Security Threats in Kenya, 2018”
The study was carried out in randomly selected sites in all the 21 border counties in
Kenya. The specific objectives were to: map out real and potential crimes in borderlands;
ascertain the factors which promote borderland crimes; identify the perpetrators and
victims of borderland crimes; identify the modus operandi of perpetrators of borderland
crimes; appraise the consequences of borderland crimes; and assess mitigation responses
to borderland crimes.
b. Study Report on “Boda Boda Motorcycle Transport and Security Challenges in Kenya, 2018”
The study was carried out in 24 counties and was focused on the: prevalence of boda boda
motorcycle related crimes; root causes of boda boda motorcycle related crimes; perpetrators
and victims of boda boda motorcycle related crimes; mode of operation of perpetrators of
boda boda motorcycle related crimes; consequences of boda boda motorcycle related crimes;
existing control measures and their effectiveness in addressing boda boda motorcycle related
crimes; and challenges and recommendations in addressing boda boda motorcycle related
crimes.
c. Study Report on “Mombasa and Isiolo Counties Crime and Violence Prevention Survey, 2017”
The objective of the study were to: promote policy and public discussion discourse on crime
and violence prevention in Counties in Kenya; explore strategies, tools and methods of crime
and violence prevention in Counties; train the respective stakeholders with adequate skills
to conceptualize, design, implement and monitor Crime and Violence Prevention Training
(CVPT) Programmes at county level; and facilitate engagement of state and non-state actors
in crime and violence prevention.
Other achievements
1. Continuous collation and analysis of crime-related data from NCAJ member

agencies.
2. Continuous collection of data through NCRC’s Crime Reporting Mobile Application

and analysis of the data to inform policy on crime prevention.
3. Dissemination of crime research information through mass media platforms,

stakeholder fora, crime research issue briefs and policy briefs.
Challenges
1. Understaffing which contributed to slowed implementation of activities.
2. Insufficient funding, which resulted in reduced programmes, shortage of necessary

equipment, inability to train members of staff, delay in establishing Crime databank
and inadequate publicity of the role of NCRC.
10.21 KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) is an independent constitutional

Commission established under article 59(4) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 3 of the
KNCHR Act No. 14 of 2011 with the core mandate of enhancing the protection and promotion
of human rights in Kenya. The KNCHR is further mandated to promote and protect all human
rights - economic, social, and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights.
The KNCHR has its functions stipulated under Section 8 of its Constitutive Act which include
among others to receive and investigate complaints of alleged human rights violations and
take steps to secure appropriate redress where rights are violated.
The KNCHR has put in place complaints management systems and investigation procedures
and standards to ensure effective delivery of service by the Commission. Complaints are
lodged using different modes including telephone; Short Text Message (SMS), website,
email, letters, physical visits to the KNCHR offices as well as KNCHR desks at Huduma
Kenya Centres. The department also receives complaints through referrals various partners
and agencies. The Commission convenes the Complaints Handling and Referral Partnership
Network and is a member of the Integrated Public Complaints Referral Mechanisms (IPCRM)
and case resolution and instil a culture for respect of human rights in public and private
sphere.
In the 2017/2018 financial year, the KNCHR received a total of 297 complaints that related
to the Judicial processes. Violations of child rights were 57 while family matters were 39.
Violation of labour rights were 34 while complaints related to the freedom from Torture,
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment were 30.
During the period under review, the KNCHR provided legal advice for 145 complaints
received. Eight matters were referred to the Advocates Complaints Commission; three
matters were also referred to the Commission on Administrative Justice. The KNCHR also
referred two matters to the High Court Registrar while five (5) matters were referred to
the Kituo Cha Sheria. The Department of Child Services received 11 matters while IPOA
received ten matters. Follow-up actions geared towards addressing the complaints received
and recommendations were also undertaken on previously referred cases. 47 matter were
concluded and files closed upon undertaking various interventions.
Below is a breakdown of the complaints that KNCHR that related matters in the Judiciary.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT COUNT PERCENTAGE

Access to Justice
• Right to effective judicial protection 33 11.11%
• To have matter dealt with expeditiously 28 9.43%
• Police Inaction 21 7.07%
• Complaint Against Advocate 16 5.39%
• Non-compliance with court orders 12 4.04%
SUBTOTAL 110 37.04%
Access to information
• Information for exercise/protection of rights 2 0.67%
• Information held by state 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 3 1.01%
Freedom from discrimination

• Fair opportunity 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 1 0.34%
Freedom from slavery /forced labour

• Prohibition of forced/compulsory labour 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 1 0.34%
Freedom from torture and cruel treatment

• Right to Freedom from Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. 21 7.07%
• Right to Freedom from Torture 9 3.03%
SUBTOTAL 30 10.10%
Freedom of conscience, religion, belief and opinion

• Freedom of religion 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 1 0.34%
Freedom of movement
• Trafficking/Distress call 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 1 0.34%
Right of arrested persons
• Be brought to court 2 0.67%
• To communicate with an advocate/person 2 0.67%
• Informed reason of arrest 1 0.34%
• Right to bail or bond 1 0.34%
• To be charged or informed of reason for detention 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 7 2.36%
Right to assemble, picket and petition

• Right to demonstrate 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 1 0.34%
Right to fair trail
Malicious prosecution 3 1.01%
Equality before the law and the court 1 0.34%
To adduce and challenge evidence 1 0.34%
Subtotal 5 1.69%
Child rights
• Parental Support 35 11.78%
• Custody 5 1.68%
• Protection from abuse 4 1.35%
• Protection from neglect 4 1.35%
• Sexual Abuse 4 1.35%
• Free and compulsory basic education 3 1.01%
• Basic nutrition, shelter and healthcare 2 0.67%
SUBTOTAL 57 19.20%
Family rights
• Family dispute 23 7.74%
• Succession/inheritance 10 3.38%
• Spouse maintenance 6 2.02%
SUBTOTAL 39 13.13%
Labour rights
• Withheld salaries /Wages 34 11.45%
SUBTOTAL 34 11.45%
Consumer rights
• Protection of health, safety and economic interest 4 1.35%
SUBTOTAL 4 1.35%
Corruption
• Bribery 1 0.34%
SUBTOTAL 1 0.34%
Evictions
• Right to own property 2 0.67%
Subtotal 2 0.67%
Human Wildlife Conflict
• Destruction of Farm Produce/Crops 1 0.34%
Subtotal 1 0.34%
TOTAL 297 100%
10.22 KENYA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) is a premier Non-Governmental Organization

which was established in 1992 with a mandate of enhancing human rights-centered
governance at all levels. The KHRC envisions human rights states and societies, which in
practical terms, aligns very well with the Republic envisaged in Article 5 of our Constitution,
i.e., “…a multi-party democratic state founded in the national values and principles of
governance referred to in Article 10”.
It is on that basis that we espouse a very holistic concept of human rights that straddles civil
and political rights (as fundamental to political democracy); economic and social rights (as
critical building blocks for social democracy); and equality and non-discrimination (both as
integrated and specific interventions in programming). To this effect, we remain committed
in deepening our political and policy leadership on the key human rights and governance
issues in the country.
Most of these are the public matters the KHRC and partners have been working on through
research, monitoring and documentation, policy and legal interventions. The Constitution
of Kenya (2010) and other national, regional and international policy instruments remain
our main governance and accountability frameworks around those issues for they espouse
very detailed and progressive guidelines on the management of the same.
Such include: Electoral Governance; Corruption-Theft and Waste of Public Resources; Civic
Space and Protection of Civil Liberties; Security Governance; Ethnic Exclusion; Devolved
Governance; Labour Rights and Industrial Democracy; Women’s Inclusion in Governance;
Citizenship, Statelessness and Universal Registration of Births; Violence and Discrimination
on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression; Historical Injustices
and Gross Human Rights Violations; Land Rights and Injustices; Business and Human Rights-
Corporate Accountability in Investments; Resource Rights and Other Key Governance
Issues3.
1. Legal Advice and Other Supportive Services
a. Through its online complaints platforms, we handled a total of 70 complaints, 23

through its SMS Platform number 22582 and 33 complaints on the email platform
at violations@khrc.or.ke and 14 through the admin@khrc.or.ke
b. KHRC participated in this year’s Law Society of Kenya Legal Awareness Week
held on the 25th to the 29th September 2017 at the Milimani Law courts grounds
where over 2,000 members of the public were sensitized on human rights,
3 Mainly: Enhancing Accountability in Mega Infrastructural Projects; Respecting the independence of State
Commissions and Independent Offices; Pursuing a people and human rights centred foreign policy, and Protecting
and Supporting other Disadvantaged Groups.
institutions’ mandates and complaints handling procedures. Around 43 complaints
were received and documented by KHRC and comprehensive legal aid provided.
Out of the 43 clients attended to 10 were referred to KHRC for mediations. KHRC
intervened in a case where a student in her final year of studies was expelled from
the school on unclear grounds and ensured that the student was re-admitted to
the school so as to sit for her final exams while residing in the school premises.
c. KHRC has offered comprehensive legal aid and advice to 786 clients. An increase in
the number of client’s attended to in the financial year is attributed to expansion
of platforms of reporting violations to include SMS and an email platform as well
as partnership and collaboration with the universities.
Table 1: Nature of Client and Actions Taken
July Aug Sep Oct Jan Feb Mar Male Female Total
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018
TOTAL CLIENT 111 83 122 100 100 120 150 425 361 786
ATTENDANCES
New client attendances 78 59 72 80 70 88 80 292 235 527
Subsequent clients 21 19 30 20 30 32 70 120 102 222
(appointments)
Clients referred to like- 12 5 20 2 40 20 15 61 52 114
minded partners
Table 2: Complaints handled through the Social Media Platform
July
SMS Platform number 22582 43
email platform at violations@khrc.or.ke 33
Email platform at admin@khrc.or.ke 14
Totals 70
Table 3: Complaints handled through the Mobile Legal Aid Clinics
July
New Clients during LSK Legal Awareness Week 43
Totals
Mediation:
Article 159(2) (c) of the Constitution explicitly provides for the use of alternative dispute
resolution as a means of delivering expeditious people-driven justice. In line with the
promotion of ADR as a form of dispute resolution, KHRC is implementing a mediation
programme to enable persons who’s rights have been violated to access justice. Mediation has
during this financial year proved to be economical, flexible and accessible to the people.
It therefore forms one of the most succinct interventions to access to justice. Through
mediation, KHRC was able to assist 20 clients access justice and get paid compensation for
unlawful termination to the tune of Kshs. 248,015.16. In the case of DM and IK, both parties
accepted to share parental responsibility equally for their child aged 2 years. DM agreed to
assist IK to secure gainful employment.
Public Interest Litigation
KHRC instituted several ongoing Public Interest Litigation cases on behalf of clients; KHRC
represented these clients as a petitioner, an interested party and/or a friend of Court (Amicus
Curiae). Out of the 10 cases filed 4 have been concluded.
Petition No. 492 Of 2016, KHRC Vs. The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Foreign Affairs and
2 Others.
The petition challenged the detention and incarceration of the four Kenyans in South Sudan
on ground that the rights of the arrested persons under the Kenyan Constitution, African
Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights has been grossly violated by the Government of South Sudan and more specifically
that the arrest and incarceration in military installation of the four Kenyans is oppressive
and a transgression of fundamental right of equality before the law and equal protection of
the law. As a result of the advocacy by KHRC the four Kenyans were released in December
2017 and united with their families as a result, the matter was withdrawn with no orders as
to costs.
Petition No. 404 of 2017, KHRC V. NGO Board and LSK
The petition challenged the decision of the NGO Board to deregister KHRC. The matter was
determined on 24th of February 2018 where the court issued a declaratory order that the
action by the NGO board to deregister KHRC, order the freezing of its bank accounts and
order the recover of none-existent taxes is unconstitutional and null and void. An order
of certiorarie was issued quashing the deregistration letter dated 14th August 2017 and the
NGO board was further ordered to make payments of general damages to the tune of Kshs.
2,000,000.
Petition No. 86 Of 2017, Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) –Vs- Ag
The petition challenges the move by the Communications Authority of Kenya to spy Mobile
networks by installing a device. Judgment was entered in favor of the petitioners stating the
the directive on installation of the DMS is unconstitutional
East African Court of Justice Application No. 12 of 2017 (Arising from Reference No. 12 of 2016), KHRC
& 2 others vs. Forum Pour Le Renforcement De La Societe Civile & 4 others, Ag. Burundi & Anor.KHRC
Filed the Application seeking leave of court to intervene as amicus curiae in Reference No.
16 of 2016. The Reference raises questions concerning the permissible limits on the right
to freedom of association and expression and of how these freedoms relate to the Treaty-
protected principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social
justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights. These issues are central to the
mandate of KHRC hence KHRC seeks to utilize its expertise towards assisting the Court in
its interpretation and application of the Treaty.
Petition No. 39 Of 2016, Legal Advice Centre & 3 Others –Vs- The County Government Of Mombasa &
2 Others
The CSO’s faulted a project proposed by the County Government of Mombasa dabbed,
“Mombasa Urban Renewal and Redevelopment of old estates” as being in violation of the right
to housing and public participation on grounds that the County government did not involve
the public, the residents of Mombasa and the concerned tenants in the conceptualization,
formulation and implementation of the programme. The judgment was delivered on 23rd of
December 2016 and held that the evidence given by the County Government was sufficient
to qualify as public participation. The county government was however required to ensure
the continuity of public participation and adhere to the provisions of Art. 10 at every level of
furthering the programme. The design of a robust continuing plan, for public participation
should be made and furnished to the court and the same communicated to the public for
any input.
Petition No. 87 of 2017, Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) –Vs- AG
The petition challenges the impugned Act as an affront to the Human Rights and Fundamental
freedoms of the many Kenyans who are affected as it was passed surreptitiously and without
public participation. The petition argues that the entire scheme of the contempt of court act
is inconsistent with the constitution and it requires drastic amendments and or to repeal.
2. Protection of Civic Space and Civil Liberties4
During this period, KHRC continued to provide leadership in the core conversations towards
expanding and consolidating civic space in the society as documented below;
a. In collaboration with other partners, we successfully challenged and effectively

repulsed the irregular and illegal attempts by the government through the NGO Board
to deregister and freeze the operations of the Commission, AfriCOG, MUHURI, Ni Sisi
Ltd, Kura Yangu Sauti Yangu among others between January and November 2017.
b. KHRC has been part of the policy and legal actions to ensure the gazettement of
the Public Benefits Organizations Act. In this regard, follow up was undertaken to
seek implementation of the favourable judgment that ordered commencement of
the PBO Act).During this period, KHRC in collaboration with partners went ahead
to seek implementation of this judgment which has to date not been acted upon by
the Executive arm of government despite being issued in October 2016. On 13th May
2017 KHRC as part of the legal team that has been undertaking this litigation obtained
favourable judgment in an application that was filed for contempt of court against the
CS in charge of the Ministry of Interior compelling him to gazette the commencement
date of the Act within 30 days of the ruling thereof.
4 See full document with detailed recommendations by ICNL, KHRC & CSRG titled “Civil Society Agenda for the
State and Political Leadership in the Context of the 2017 General Elections and Beyond”.
3. Security Governance
The security and safety of all Kenyan citizens is a an obligation that is solely vested in
National Security Organs like the Kenya Defence Forces, the National Intelligence Service
and the National Police Service5. Constitutionally these organs are mandated to discharge
their obligations in compliance with the law, respect for the rule of law, democracy, human
rights and fundamental freedoms6.
Despite an abundance of resources being invested in security sector reforms, human rights
violations at the hands of security agencies persist alongside low levels of accountability
for culpable security officers. In August 2017 ahead of the General Elections, KHRC and the
International Federation on Human Rights (FIDH) published an authoritative report entitled,
“Kenya’s Scorecard on Security and Justice: Broken Promises and Unfinished Business,”
which served as an audit of Kenya’s reforms in the Justice and Security sectors ahead of the
elections and against the backdrop of manifestos issued by political parties contesting the
election.7 Painting a picture of significant gains and losses by way of legislation, policy and
practice, the report concluded with pointed recommendations to the Executive, Parliament,
Judiciary, Civil Society and fellow NGOs working in the security and justice sector.
KHRC, together with grass root human rights defenders were able to identify over fifty
victims of 2017 Post-Election Violence within Nairobi County alone. Of these, 11 victims were
unlawfully killed/ succumbed to injuries from bullet wounds after the Police employed the
use of live ammunition in dealing with the demonstrations within Nairobi. KHRC referred
several victims to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Independent Policing
Oversight Authority and the Internal Affairs Unit to file complaints of alleged human rights
violations by Police Officers from the National Police Service.
KHRC was enjoined in Petition No 379 of 2017- Katiba Institute and the African Center
for Open Governance (AFRICOG) V Hon Attorney General and the Inspector General of
the National Police Service. This petition seeks to challenge the unconstitutionality of the
amended sixth schedule to the National Police Service Act on the premise that it violates the
right to life guaranteed under the constitution of Kenya.
4. Historical Injustices and Gross Human Rights Violations
KHRC kept the issue of reparations for victims of historical injustices and gross violations of
human rights high on the public agenda and maintained a platform to advance reparations
for victims of historical injustices and gross human rights violations. Towards this, KHRC
facilitated the submission of a petition by 12 communities to the Taskforce on Land Leases in
Kenya outlining historical injustices for resolution.8 This has since borne further engagement
with the National Land Commission who are currently undertaking public hearings on
5 Article 239 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

6 Article 238 (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
7 The report can be accessed here: https://www.khrc.or.ke/publications/166-kenya-s-scorecard-on-securi-
ty-and-justice-broken-promises-and-unfinished-business/file.html
8 A photo gallery of a meeting convened by KHRC to facilitate an interaction between community representatives
from Kakuzi as well as the Asian community is accessible here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/135533708@
N03/sets/72157686040540756 while media coverage on the same can be accessed here: https://www.capi-
talfm.co.ke/news/2017/07/taskforce-nlc-engage-public-contentious-land-leases/ . The petition can be availed
as an annex to the report.
historical injustices in furtherance of their mandate under the Constitution and NLC Act.
Other communities have since approached KHRC for assistance with similar petitions.
5. Business and Human Rights-Corporate Accountability in Investments
KHRC’s database also points to a rise in human rights violation by corporations. This is
affirmed also in the “Dumisha Haki na Uongozi Mwema Kenya”: A Status Brief and Peoples
Manifesto for Political and Policy Engagements, publication which posits that corporate
activities are closely connected to the most basic human rights violations, namely the rights
to work, to adequate standard of living, health and access to a clean environment, among
others. Towards this, KHRC has initiated various disputes in the labor relations court and
constitutional petitions on various violations by corporations.
6. Human Rights Reports and Urgent Actions

a. KHRC in implementing its interventions reported a lot of emerging and systemic
violations targeting poor people and HRDs in Kenya that demand urgent action-
policy, legal, political. Suring this reporting period, KHRC conducted a successful
advocacy intervention to pressurize the government to restore broadcasting by
national television networks, following an illegal and unconstitutional media shut
down. KHRC together with partners ignited public discussion and debate on issues
around media freedom and freedom of information, following the media shutdown
experienced around the country in January-February 2018. On 2nd February 2018,
KHRC in collaboration with partners convened a press conference at Methodist Guest
House, Kileleshwa, to address this issue. The partners issued a comprehensive press
statement that raised constitutional and legal concerns surrounding the shutdown.
This action was followed by a peaceful protest on 5th February 2018. On the same day
of the peaceful protest, 2 of the major television stations, KTN and NTV were restored,
marking the end of the unconstitutional action by the government.
b. Achieving successful results from the intensive nationwide campaign dubbed

#FreeSSudan4. Following our intensive campaign and intervention on the South Sudan
4 matter, on 5th December 2017, the four Kenyan who had been wrongfully jailed were
finally released from imprisonment in South Sudan by way of a presidential pardon.
This was done after. President Uhuru Kenyatta intervened and held discussions with
the president of South Sudan. Throughout the year, KHRC facilitated an intensive
nationwide campaign which targeted the public, as well as the presidents of both
Kenya and south Sudan through the use of mainstream and social media, lobbying
meeting, vigils, and peaceful protests among others. The campaign finally caught the
attention of the leaders, who mutually agreed to intervene on the issue9.
c. KHRC was one of the few organisations that exposed and documented the gross
human rights violations committed by the state to protestors after the announcement
of the presidential elections in August 2017. Protests that began in various informal
settlements in Nairobi and Kisumu were violently quelled by security agents following
which several protestors and by standers lost their lives while many others were
9 http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Four-Kenyans-released-from-South-Sudan-jail-expected-home-today/1056-
4216622-tr5v9o/index.html https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001262355/four-kenyans-freed-from-
prison-in-south-sudan-arrive-home https://citizentv.co.ke/news/emotional-reunion-as-four-kenyans-freed-
from-south-sudan-prison-arrive-at-jkia-184546/
injured. On 18th and 25th August, KHRC in collaboration with its local networks visited
the affected areas to obtain first hand information on the impact of the police brutality
in these areas. Specifically, areas visited were Mathare, Baba Dogo, Kibra, and Dandora.
The information collected will inform KHRC’s documentation on human rights abuses
and violations during the election period.
d. KHRC undertook continuous documentation of and advocacy against gross human

rights violations and governance malpractices in Kenya. The data for this purpose
was collected from mainstream media, reports from HURINETS and partners, cases
reported to KHRC through the legal aid scheme among others.
e. Using data and information collected from our monitoring and documentation work
to advise our engagement at the regional level. During the 60th and 61st Session of the
African Commission on Human & People’s Rights (ACHPR) held in May 2017 and
October 2017 respectively, KHRC was represented in several panel discussions which
provided a platform for KHRC to discuss findings of emerging human rights issues
in Kenya, and also discuss strategies for the advancement of rights, especially in the
context of shrinking civic space as well as the upcoming elections.
f. Through this platform, KHRC was able to discuss and share information on the
status of human rights in Kenya, and particularly, issues of human rights in vis a vis
shrinking civic space and the upcoming elections to the African Commission Special
Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders in Africa. Out of these discussions, KHRC
and other Kenyan teams secured a commitment from Madame Reine to propose
an ACHPR resolution on Kenyan upcoming elections10.
g. Convening the sector to spearhead the drafting of a report on the state of Human Rights
in Kenya to be forwarded to the Human Rights Council: As a co secretariat and member
of the steering committee of the Kenya CSO UPR11 coalition12, KHRC spearheaded the
drafting of a report on the state of Human Rights in Kenya The coalition is co.convened
by other key human rights actors namely the UPR Infor, KNCHR, Lutheran world
Federation, ICJ-Kenya Chapter and the Office of the High Commissioner on Human
Rights. KHRC’s contribution to the report is influenced largely by our monitoring and
documentation data collected with support from this grant.
h. The KHRC has continued to publish topical and omnibus human rights reports. For
instance, the July 2017 report entitled: “Dumisha Haki na Uongozi Mwema: A Status
Brief and Peoples Manifesto for Political and Policy Engagements” serves as the
baseline for understanding the human rights situation in Kenya, monitoring progress
and deepening accountability from the time the new President and political system
are voted in August 2017. This will be complimented by the UPR Status reports we are
developing in partnership with other human rights organizations.
10 See attached Annexure 3 for a copy of the joint CSO resolution to the African Commission on human & Peoples
Rights.
11 The universal periodic review (UPR) established through the United Nations General Assembly is a state
driven, inter-governmental interactive and cooperative process that reviews the performance of all states in
fulfillment of their human rights obligations every four years.
12 This is coalition of Key CSO actors that will oversee collaborative CSO monitoring of the government’s imple-
mentation status with regards to the recommendations issued to Kenya by the UN Council during the last cycle
of the Universal Periodic Review
10.23 COUNCIL FOR LEGAL EDUCATION
The Council of Legal Education has been re-established under the Legal Education Act,
No.27 of 2012 with the duo primary purposes of: promoting legal education and training,
through maintenance of the highest possible standards in legal education, Licensing legal
Education Providers, administration of the Bar Examination, the recognition of Foreign
Legal Qualification for enrollment to the Bar in Kenya. The Bar examination is ran in two
series, the resit series in July of every year and the regular main sitting in November of every
year.
As a member of NCAJ, the Council has made progress in the fulfilment of its mandate under
the Legal Education Act 2012 as amended by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous) Amendment
Act 2014, as follows:
A. Administration Of The Bar Examination
Table 1: Data on candidates who sat for resits in July 2017 series
ATP ATP ATP ATP ATP ATP ATP ATP ATP
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Candidates present 842 226 104 548 38 274 188 1151 1284
Percentage pass 69 47.5 74 33 68.5 68 68.5 78 37.5
Percentage fail 30.5 52.5 26 67 31.5 32 31.5 22 62.5
Total Qualified 797

Percentage qualified 40%
Table 2: Data on candidates who sat the Bar Examination in July 2017 series

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Percentage pass 58 69 77 34 75 68 70 57.5 28
Percentage fail 42 31.5 23 66 25 32 30 42.5 72
Total Qualified 14
Table 3: Data on candidates who sat the Bar Examination in November 2017 series

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Percentage pass 69.5 59 86.5 50.5 96 92.5 71 62 53.5
Percentage fail 30.5 41 13.5 49.5 4 7 29 38 46.5
Total Qualified 479
Percentage 25%
qualified
Table 4: Data on candidates who sat for resist during the November 2017 series

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Percentage pass 46.5 47 45 22 83.5 75 11.5 34.5 25.5
Percentage fail 53.5 53 55 78 16.5 24.5 88.5 65.5 74.5
Total Qualified 323

Council gazetted 1204 students between 1st July, 2017 and 30th June, 2018 to facilitate petitions
for admission to the Bar as follows:
Table 5: Data on Candidates Gazetted
GAZETTMENT DATE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES

1 4 August, 2017
th
18
2 19 October, 2017
th
52
3 8 December, 2017
th
139
4 26 January, 2018
th
390
5 16 March, 2018
th
291
6 23 March, 2018
rd
40
7 11 May, 2018
th
228
8 8 June, 2018
th
46
TOTAL 1204
B. LICENSING OF LEGAL EDUCATION PROVIDERS
Table 6: Data on Licensed Institutions - LL. B. and Diploma Programmes
NAME OF INSTITUTION STATUS

1 Riara University School of Law (Main Campus) Licence valid until 09.11.2021 subject to
satisfaction of terms and conditions.
2 Africa Naarene University School of Law (Main Licence valid until 29.05.2019
Campus)
3 University of Nairobi School of Law (Parklands Licence valid until 07.08.2019
Campus)
4 University of Nairobi School of Law (Mombasa Licence valid until 19.01.2021
Campus)
University of Nairobi School of Law (Kisumu Licence valid until 31.07.2023
Campus)
5 Kabarak University School of Law (Main Campus) Licence valid until 08.09.2020
6 Egerton University School of Law (Nakuru Town Licence valid until 12.02.2021
Campus)
7 Strathmore University School of Law (Main Campus) Licence valid until 9.11.2021 subject to
8 Kenyatta University School of Law (Parklands Licence valid until 14.12.2021 subject to
Campus) satisfaction of terms and conditions.
9 Jomo Kenyatta University School of Law (Karen Licence valid until 16.09.2021 subject to
Campus) satisfaction of terms and conditions.
10 Catholic University of Eastern Africa School of Law Licence valid until 16.09.2021 subject to
11 Mt. Kenya University School of Law (Parklands Institution on 31st July, 2023 subject to satisfaction
Campus) of terms and conditions.
12 Daystar University School of Law Institution on 31st July, 2023 subject to satisfaction
of terms and conditions.
13 Kisii University School of Law (Main Campus) Institution Inspected on 26th July, 2018. Status
pending final determination and approval by
Council.
14 Institution inspected on 27th July, 2018.
Table 7: List of audited institutions

11 Kenya Institute of Management Institution audited on 16th July, 2018.
DIPLOMA
Kenya School of Law (Para-Legal Studies) Institution has applied for licensing. Awaiting
Inspection.
MASTERS
Strathmore University School of Law Institution has applied for licensing. Awaiting
inspection.
Table 8: Schedule of fees
SERVICE FEES CHARGEABLE (KSHS)

Licensing process
Certificate Programme/renewal 500,000.00
Diploma Programme/renewal 900,000.00
Undergraduate Programme/renewal 1,600,000.00
Master’s Degree Programme/renewal 1,600,000.00
Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Laws Programme/renewal 800,000.00
Examination fees
Examination fee per unit 5,000.00
Examination re-sit 10,000.00
Examination remark 15,000.00
Recognition of approval of foreign qualification in law
Recognition of approval fees 10,000.00
There has been no increment in fees since the 2016/2017 fiscal year. Licensing fees are
payable once every five (5) years which is the equivalent of the period of the licence.
No changes have been made to the Bar examination regulations as applied by Kenya School
of Law before Council took over the mandate. The Council of Legal Education is in the
process of developing the Legal Education (Bar Examinations) Regulations, 2018.
The Pre-bar examination was introduced by the Statute Law Miscellaneous Amendments
Act, 2014. This is the exclusive mandate of the Kenya School of Law.
C. RECOGNITION AND APPROVAL OF FOREIGN LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS
Table 9: Data on Applications received for Recognition and Approval of Foreign Legal Qualifications
Number of Applicants
Application for Recognition & Approval of Foreign Legal Qualifications 398
Appeals 191
High School Qualifications 194
Clearance after Remedial Programme 71
TOTAL 854
Achievements
1. Licensing of Legal Education Providers: Council has licenced three (3) Institutions
in 2018, i.e. Mount Kenya University, Daystar University and University of Nairobi
(Kisumu Campus).
2. Council processed 398 applications for recognition and approval of Foreign Legal
Qualifications for purposes of admission to the Advocates Training Programme at the
Kenya School of Law.
3. Council conducted a study that culminated in the recognition and approval of

qualifications obtained by Open and Distance E-Learning (ODEL) and degrees
with a different nomenclature.
4. Council has been releasing Bar Examination results within two (2) months of the
examination.
Challenges
1. The biggest challenge remains the exponential growth in the number of candidates taking
the Bar Examination. This has strained training resources. There is need to increase
the number of Legal Education Providers offering the Advocates Training Programme
currently a preserve of the Kenya School of Law.
Work in Progress
Council has embarked on the development of policy and regulatory framework in the
following areas:
1. The Bar examination
2. The Bar Curricula
3. Review of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations,
2016.
4. Bar Examination Regulations.
10.24 FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS IN KENYA
The Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) – Kenya is a non-profit membership and premier
women’s rights organization in Kenya established in 1985. Its vision is creation of a society
that respects and upholds women’s rights with the mission to promote of women’s individual
and collective power to claim their rights in all spheres of life. FIDA-Kenya programs
include working with the courts (through the CUC) in selected regions to promote access
to justice, working with parliament to enhance gender responsive legislative and oversight
functions. Through its work with Informal Justice Systems (IJS), FIDA-Kenya has been able
to nurture respectful relationships that have facilitated these mechanisms; and to question
and reflect on how unequal power relations and stereotypes are drivers of injustices and
rights violations. FIDA-Kenya has been able to promote a culture of respect for women’s
rights particularly where courts affirm women’s rightful claims in rulings and judgments.
FIDA-Kenya remains highly committed towards transforming and expanding the legal and
institutional spaces to respond to the ever-increasing demand for its services from women
who are economically disadvantaged and other vulnerable groups such as the children.
Activities and Achievements by FIDA
1. Legal Advice and Litigation:

The organization provided legal advice to 9878 clients. 1064 cases were taken and filed
in court while others were handled through other interventions. 79 cases filed in court
were concluded with a 90% success rate.
2. Strategic Impact Litigation (SIL):
FIDA - Kenya has been engaged in a number of public interest litigation cases in various
courts across the country. Some of the issues that the organization litigated on during
the reporting period were: The nurses’ strike, women’s participation in enforcement
of the two thirds gender rule and reinstatement of use of guideline in safe abortion.
3. Pro bono Lawyers Scheme:
FIDA Kenya has been able to mobilize and enrol over 450 lawyers into the scheme
whereby both male and female lawyers in private practice countrywide have
volunteered to take up cases on behalf of FIDA Kenya clients. The organization recruited
47 additional lawyers and referred 383 clients to various pro bono lawyers during the
reporting period. To enhance the pro bono lawyers’ capacity and as an incentive FIDA
Kenya offers the pro bono lawyers’ training on new and emerging legal issues.
4. Self-Representation:
The organization provided training to 467 clients and filed 427 cases in court, 77 clients
completed their cases through self-representation.
5. Alternative Dispute Resolution: 1459 mediation invitations were sent out and 562
mediations conducted where 402 were successful.
6. During the reporting period, FIDA Kenya partnered with Mediation Training
International (MTI) and conducted 6 mediation trainings at Nairobi, Mombasa and
Kisumu regions. This initiative has increased the number of professionally trained
mediators to take up cases both at FIDA offices and the judiciary.
7. Engagement with Informal Justice Systems:
FIDA Kenya recognizes the role played by IJS in delivering justice to local communities
and is keen to ensure that the systems uphold the principles of human rights in their
adjudication and work under legal provisions in the Constitution. FIDA Kenya has
developed an informal justice systems strategy manual and currently engages with
over 20 IJS across Kenyan communities by enhancing their capacity to provide access
to justice on issues within their mandate and to ensure referral of sexual and gender
based violence cases to relevant authorities for litigation. FIDA-K held 6 trainings for
Elders on the current provisions of the Constitution and women land and property
rights. 39 cases were referred to various council of elders during the reporting period
with 11 cases being concluded successfully.
8. Psychosocial Support:
FIDA Kenya realizes that for a woman to realize her rights she must have the mental
well being. Through this program the organization has assisted women who suffered
mental and emotional trauma due to the infringement of their rights whether
physically, economically or emotionally. 458 clients were given counselling services
of which 214 were new clients. A total of 41 couple therapy session were held with 31
being successful.
9. Partnerships and Linkages:
FIDA Kenya continues to partner with other like-minded institutions to advance
justice for women. During the reporting period, FIDA held trainings for 3 CuCs (Vihiga,
Tana River and Othaya) on Bail Bond Policy and Evidence issues with regard to SGBV
cases. FIDA Kenya is also participates in court users committee meetings to represents
issues that affect clients in family, land and labor divisions.
10. Referrals:
1429 cases were referred to other partners and agencies like the children’s department,
the Police, hospitals, Huduma Centers among others.
Synopsis of significant cases during the period:
1. PETITION 401 OF 2017; FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS IN KENYA VS THE SPEAKER THE
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND 3 OTHERS(2/3 Gender Rule).
FIDA Kenya in following up on the 2/3rd gender rule on 16th August 2017 filed a suit against
the Speaker of the National Assembly seeking a declaration the current Parliament has
failed to meet the 2/3rd principle and is thus, an unconstitutional parliament. FIDA is
also seeking an Order of Mandamus requiring the Speaker to present a list of nominees
in numbers sufficient to bring the Parliament in Conformity with the Constitution.
The matter is ongoing as FIDA Kenya continues to challenge the constitutionality of

the current Parliament.
2. NAIROBI PETITION NO. 67 OF 2017: FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS IN KENYA VS THE

NATIONAL UNION OF NURSES& 5 OTHERS
FIDA Kenya filed a suit against KNUN and 5 others seeking a solution during the
Nurses’ strike in July 2017. In this suit FIDA Kenya sought a declaration that health
services are essential services and that strikes in this sector ought to be regulated.
The matter was dismissed for the reason of being Res Judicata. The Judge (L.J Onyango)
however recognized that FIDA’s case had merit.
Achievement: The ministry of health is in the process of drafting rules and regulations
on medical practitioners strike. The rules are a replica of FIDA Kenya’s arguments
“Part of the medical staff must remain on duty when any strike is called”. FIDA Kenya
will continue to engage in this process.
3. PETITION 266 OF 2015 FIDA KENYA VS AG, CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AND DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICES
FIDA Kenya seeks the Ministry of Health to restore the National Guidelines on Post
Abortion Care.
The case is ongoing.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 164B OF 2016: FIDA KENYA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL &
ANOTHER
FIDA sought to challenge the constitutionality of Section 7 of the Matrimonial

Properties Act on the basis that it offended Articles 27, 40, 45 (3), 60 and 68 of the
Constitution which provides for equality in marriage, right to property and right
against discrimination. The Court held that the impugned section did not offend any
of the provisions of the Constitution or contradict it hence dismissed the petition with
no orders as to costs.
5. MACHAKOS PETITION NO. 8 OF 2017: DR. TATU KAMAU VS. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND ANTI-FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION BOARD
The petition was filed on the 24th of July, 2017. The Petitioner’s main contention is that
female circumcision ought not to be prohibited since it forms part of culture. Also,
she contends that the ANTI-FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION BOARD is not legally
constituted.
FIDA –Kenya filed an application to be enjoined in the matter as an interested party.

The matter is now coming up for ruling on the 17th of January 2018.
Challenges:
The following were the challenges that the organization faced in the administration of justice
during the period:
1. Political unrest affected the in-flow of clients to the legal aid clinics. Mobile legal aid
clinics could also not be held between August 2017 – February 2018.
2. Lack of proper documentation from the women. Most of the reported that their male
partners are ones who kept legal documents like Title Deeds, Sale Agreements etc.
3. Ignorance – the community is largely not aware of some of the amendments in the
laws of succession and property rights as regards to women and inheritance.
4. Distance – some clients have to travel long distances to make a follow up on their
matters or seek legal aid. This is because the organization is only serviced by regional
offices. Mobile legal aid camps help to mitigate this.
5. There was a challenge in training of judges due to the CJs directive of putting on hold
any training for the judiciary. The prioritization of the hearing of election petition also
hampered this.
10.25 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN SERVICES
The Department draws its mandate from Section38 of the Children Act 2001. Its main
mandate is to safeguard the rights and welfare of children, in regard to the establishment,
promotion, coordination and supervision of services and facilities designed to advance the
wellbeing of children and their families.
Achievements
1. NCAJ Task force on Children matters
Under the Chairperson of NCAJ Task force on children matters and the Director
Children services who co-Chair the National Steering Committee under the National
Council for Children Services (NCCS) the Children’s bill 2018 underwent successful
validation and is currently at the Attorney General a waiting to be tabled in Parliament.
2. Child Protection
The Department conducted sensitization on Violence Against Children (VAC) and

conducted capacity building for Area Advisory Councils (AACs) in thirteen (13)
counties. A protocol on Kenya Violence against Children survey and questionnaire was
developed.
To further deliver on its mandate, the Department undertook the process of costing
child protection and came up with a costing model besides other child protection
interventions that were initiated as mentioned below;-
• A technical working group on missing children was formed and there is a concept
paper that has been developed on the same.
• A baseline survey on children of imprisoned mothers was carried out.
Draft guidelines on Child on-line protection were developed during the review period.
This is to ensure that children are protected from cyber bulling. It is expected that in
the next financial year the guidelines will be validated and subsequently implemented.
3. Child Protection Information Management System (CPIMIS)
The CPIMS is a digital system, which is used to capture and store data on various
categories of children. The Department has successfully rolled out this programme in
fifteen counties following the coverage of an additional four counties i.e Bungoma,
Busia, Vihiga and Kisii with the support of partners. UNICEF has taken up nine (9)
counties starting with Turkana and Mombasa. The department is engaging with
partners for the coverage of the remaining twenty-four (24) counties.
4. Strategic Interventions
Department sensitized 21 Children County Coordinators on Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) so as to assist in diverting civil cases such as maintenance and
custody of children from the courts in pursuant to section 159 (c) of the Constitution.
It is anticipated that the balance of 26 County heads will be sensitized in the next
financial year.
5. Community Child Protection
The Department gave bursaries to 27,408 to Secondary school children (14061 boys
and 13,347 girls) under the Presidential Bursary scheme for Orphans and Vulnerable
Children (OVC), this is an increase from the previous year where 22000 children were
awarded under the same scheme.
The child helpline 116 is a Government phone service that links children in need of
care and protection to essential services and resources. Currently Kabete and Eldoret
are operational. During the year under review, the Department began the process
of transiting operations of the two helplines from Child Line Kenya (CKL) to the
Department. This is designed to take place in two phases. Phase one 2018-2020 and
the second phase 2020- 2022. In order to improve service delivery to clients, the
helplines are also being upgraded so as to receive more calls, process data faster and
give feedback real time.
6. Development of Guidelines
Guidelines for Case Management and Referral Training Manual was developed and
finalized during the period under review. This was to standardize case management
procedures among key stakeholders working with children and strengthen referral for
children cases. In order to standardize the training, 23 officers were trained as Training
of Trainers (TOT).
Mentorship for officials for the Kenya Children Assembly (KCA) at the County level to
enhance child participation.
Draft Guidelines on Diversion were developed and handed over to the office of
Department of Public Prosecution.
7. Counter Trafficking in Persons
Counter trafficking in persons secretariat continued to provide advisory services

to the Government on issues of counter trafficking in persons especially women
and children. The National Referral Mechanism Guidelines for assisting victims of
trafficking were disseminated in 10 counties. The National Assistance Trust Fund for
assisting victims of Trafficking is operational. So far, 31 victims were rescued and
referred for assistance or voluntary return. During the year under review, the process
of reviewing the miscellaneous amendment of the Counter Trafficking in Persons Act
was initiated. A delegation went to UNGAS, New York to present the position of the
country in combating Human Trafficking.
8. Children’s Institutions.
The Department currently runs 30 statutory children institutions categorized as;

Rehabilitation Schools which are nine (9), Children Remand Home which fourteen
(14) Rescue Centres these are five (5) and two (2) Reception and Classification Centres.
During the year under review, there was a marked reduction of overstayed cases of
Children in Remand Homes and this is greatly attributed to fast tracking of cases
during Court Service Weeks.
The statutory children institutions in the country gave custody and rehabilitation
services to a total of 6,782 children during the year under review. The Rehabilitation
Schools served 1,205 children (912 boys and 293 girls). The Children Remand Homes
handled 4,982 children (3,592 boys and 1,390 girls). The Rescue Centres provided
care and protection to 595 children (344 boys and 251girls). Currently there are 1,602
children at the statutory children’s institutions under the Department of Children’s
Services with a holding capacity of 2,500.
There was a circular issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Labour and Social Protection
barring registration of new Charitable Children’s Institutions. This was occasioned by
reports of various malpractices and cases of child abuse in some of those institutions. A
number of forums were held to sensitize stakeholders on the need to bring up children
within the family set up as against institutionalization.
9. Alternative Family Care
The Department with support from UNICEF carried out a pilot programme on
Alternative Family Care in Kisumu County. Key stakeholders including managers and
CCIs social workers and opinion leaders were trained on various forms of alternative
family care and the need to bring up children within the family unit. The second phase
of the programme is community sensitization.
Challenges
1. Lack of legal aid or legal representation of children charged in conflict with the law
despite the launch of the legal Aid Act 2016
2. Poor prosecution of defilement cases resulting in the defeat of justice
3. Frequent cases of teenage children having non-consensual sex resulting in the boy
child being discriminated against.
4. Delay in cases where children have committed capital offences.
5. Radicalization of children and lack of skills to handle such cases.
6. Children being held in same facilities with adults especially at court cells or during
escort to and from court.
7. Delays in disbursement of funds especially in the institutions causing children to be

denied basic services.
8. Old dilapidated infrastructure in statutory children’s institution as most of them were

constructed during colonial period.
9. Low staffing levels in both field and institutions.
10.26 THE CRADLE
Introduction
The CRADLE - The Children’s Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit making and non-
governmental organization committed to the protection, promotion and enhancement
of the rights of the child through court representation, advocacy and law reform. The
organization exists to protect and promote the rights of the child and see a just society for
children. It works with numerous stakeholders and collaborators such as governmental
departments, international organizations, other NGOs and communities to raise awareness
on child protection and child rights, provide legal aid to children in contact and conflict with
the law, and trafficked children, protect child rights and strengthen policy and legislative
advocacy for legal frameworks. The CRADLE operations are categorised under the following
programmes namely; Access to Justice; Child Rights Awareness; Policy and Legislative
Advocacy; and Research, Monitoring and Documentation;
During the period 2017/2018 The CRADLE offered legal aid to over 523 children through its
offices in Nairobi, Lodwar and Malindi. There were 319 girls and 204 Boys.
The CRADLE advocates handled matters of defilement and children in conflict with the
law while Legal aid was offered to assist children access justice and safeguard their welfare
through self-representation scheme and referrals to other partner organizations to ensure
effective response to the various legal issues raised by clients.
One of the highlights of the year was being awarded a judgment on behalf of a minor who
we sued the AG and the National Police service for infringement of her rights as she was
stripped while in the custody of the police and pictures of her circulated around in social
media. This judgment set precedent on the duty of care and protection of minors while in
the custody of the police.
There is still a continued demand for legal aid in child maintenance and custody matters. The
CRADLE actively participated in the children’s service week in different courts around the
country notably Nairobi, Ngong, The CRADLE was also able to offer legal representation to
children in conflict with the law utilising the concept of plea bargaining that has been rolled
out by the judiciary during the children service week. We were able to resolve five cases using
plea-bargaining. The CRADLE observed the high number of child abuse matters especially
defilement in Busia and Bungoma counties where we still continue to receive numerous
calls for assistance from grass root organisations. This is still an ongoing observation from
last year where our clients complain of the lack of prosecution of this matters, interference
from the police and perpetrators, and subsequently the perpetrators go scot free. This is an
area that needs sensitization on the laws that protect children from abuse, and training and
retraining of judicial officers in handling matters of abuse.
The CRADLE runs a Probono Lawyers Scheme. A total of 10 cases were referred to pro bono
lawyers countrywide. The matters referred to the pro bono lawyers were maintenance suits
and protection and care matters. Three matters in this case were successfully concluded
During this period The CRADLE offered psychosocial support to over 136 children in contact
and conflict with the law, and child survivors of abuse there were 93 boys and 43 girls.
The CRADLE engaged paralegals especially in Lodwar where there are no lawyers (there
are only two resident lawyers) to offer legal support. The CRADLE linked the paralegals to a
probono lawyer support and guidance when on cases that they might not be able to handle.
This creates sustainability for our program. This has gone a long way in enhancing child
protection in the region.
In policy and advocacy, The CRADLE participated in the NCAJ Taskforce on children’s
matters, NCAJ special committee on the sexual offences and the NCAJ Committee on Criminal
Justice Reform and continued to influence policies that affect children especially within the
judicial system. This period saw the CRADLE participate in the validation of the Children’s
bill that will be soon tabled in parliament. The CRADLE is a member of the National Steering
Committee of The Children’s Bill. The CRADLE has also been an active member of different
court users committees where we have been driving the children’s agenda. The CRADLE
is a member of the Taskforce on Policy, Legal, Institutional and Administrative reforms
regarding intersex persons in Kenya under the office of the Attorney General. This period
the CRADLE was involved in the data collection of intersex persons in the country. This data
will influence the policies and law enacted on the welfare and protection of intersex persons
in the country
Challenges:
One of the major challenges that The CRADLE faced in its work was the slow progress of the
children’s matters where The CRADLE is watching brief for child victims. One of the main
reasons is there is the low capacity of magistrates and prosecutors to deal with children
matters. Prosecutors are frequently changed and the rapport that was developed with
the previous prosecutor is no longer there, thereby the child victims are not comfortable
being guided by the replacements. The CRADLE suggests further thorough training of both
the magistrates and prosecutors on how to handle children in contact with the law. The
component of psychosocial support through counseling should also be encouraged as this
prepares the child mentally and emotionally to give his or her testimony. We have observed
that children who go through pre-trial counseling are better equipped to testify before court.
The CRADLE has also observed that the different contradictory judgments on the sexual
offences act has influenced judgment where the perpetrators of sexual offences have been
let free. This is a worrying trend as it defeats the purpose for which the sexual offences act
was enacted. The call for the review and amendment of the sexual offences act should be
considered but always considering the protection and best interests of the child.
10.27 LEGAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION
The Legal Resources Foundation (LRF) is an independent, human rights organization that
promotes access to justice through human rights education, research and policy advocacy
initiatives. LRF’s mission is to be a resource for justice, equity and resilience in communities
through holistic participatory interventions and strategic partnerships. In this regard, LRF
partners with both State and Non State actors at national and regional levels to promote
exchange learning for purposes of learning and experience. LRF further is an active member
of the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ), both at the Council and
Technical Committee Level.
LRF has continued to work in partnership with the NCAJ, its Constituent CUCs around the
country, the Kenya Prison Service, the National Police Service, the Probation department,
among other actors in the justice sector to enhance the space for access to justice and human
rights in Kenya.
The Kenyan criminal justice system has undergone tremendous transformation in the
recent past. The provisions of the 2010 Constitution further affirmed the transformation.
We have witnessed a committed justice agency that is thirsty of transforming itself to an
institution that delivers quality justice to all. This is witnessed by the various efforts e.g.:
the JTF 2012/16; NCAJ Strategic plan 2012/16; Correctional services reform agenda; Vetting
of judges and judicial officers; vetting of police officers; NCAJ/LRF audit of the criminal
justice system among other initiatives. Due to these reform efforts, we have witnessed an
improvement in public perception of various institutions.
Operating context (Successes, challenges and lessons learnt)
Success/ Improvements
1. Operationalization of the National Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms
There has been notable successes aimed at enhancing justice. Key among these reform
efforts are the formation, gazettement and operationalization of the National Committee on
Criminal Justice Reforms (NCCJR), the continued implementation of the provisions of the
bail and bond policy, the continued assignment by the special taskforce on children among
others.
The Judiciary in its endeavor to enhance justice delivery among the rights holders continue
to implement the performance management and measurement system towards enhancing
efficiency in justice delivery. LRF’s part contribution to this process was assisting NCAJ
develop the CUC planning and reporting template (PMERL) which was adopted in the
annual national CUC bi-annual conference and later confirmed by the NCAJ Council. The
NCAJ Chair who is also the Chief Justice gave a practice notice that the PMERL tools should
remain the official working tools for all CUCs nationally.
Prior to this SOJAR period NCAJ commissioned LRF and RODI - Kenya to undertake an
Audit of the criminal justice system in Kenya in 2015. The audit ended in Dec 2016, and the
Chief Justice launched it on the 23rd of January 2017 where he also committed to gazette a
CJS committee to implement the audit recommendations. Towards this, the NCAJ Director
formed the NCCJR, which was eventually gazetted by the Chief Justice on 23rd June 2017
through gazette notice 5857.
The NCCJR a multi-agency initiative is mandated to spearhead the comprehensive review
and reform of Kenya’s entire criminal justice system, and oversee the full implementation
of the findings and recommendations of the Criminal Justice System in Kenya: An Audit.
The NCCJR has been able to develop an elaborate work plan on how to implement the
recommendations of the audit conducted. Towards this, the committee has been able to
achieve a number of targets namely:
1. Development and adoption of the monitoring and accountability tool in places of

detention as guided by the international standard minimum rules on treatment of
prisoners (Mandela rules). This tool was founded on the background of the findings
made by the CJS audit, which established that, our places of detention as deplorable
and fall short of the minimum requirements. The tool shall assist in monitoring
the conditions, analyze conformity to national and international standards and
recommend improvements required. It was also suggested there be established an
independent body for the protection of conditions of detention and those therein (An
equivalent of IPOA in prisons), or the mandate of IPOA be expanded to the prison
system.
2. Baseline meeting between the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the ODPP.
This meeting was aimed at establishing the issues affecting the dispensation of justice
where the two institutions are required. The meeting established there exists frosty
relationship between the two institutions especially at the station levels. It was
then recommended the need for a liaison officer from the NPS who is senior in rank
(preferably a senior superintendent of police –SPP) to act as a go between the DCI and
DPP at the station level. This officer is required to coordinate in a simulated manner all
correspondences and files to court and from court between the two institutions.
Other successful initiatives by LRF include:
1. Capacity building/ training for CUCs in different regions.
This was for Nakuru, Kericho, Baringo, Machakos, Meru, Isiolo and Nairobi Counties.
LRF responded to needs assessments of the various CUCs, and the capacity development
was in the fields of: Provisions of recently enacted legislations and policies; forensic
investigation, packaging of evidence, preservation and presentation of evidence
(the unit increased the appreciation and use of forensic science in determination of
criminal matters; people focused administration of stations (police, courts, prisons
e.t.c.); the standard minimum rules on treatment of prisoners (Mandela Rules) among
other topical areas. The outcome of this has been improved service delivery to litigants
coupled by an improved reaction to the needs and rights of both accused and victims
of crimes.
LRF was also able to support operations and initiatives of child focused court users
committees (CCUCs) at the Milimani children’s court, the Nakuru Children’s Court
and the Tononoka Children’s Court. The outcome of these children courts that are
more responsive to the needs and rights of children.
2. Capacity Building for Judicial Officers
Two (2) magistrate-training sessions were conducted in October 2017. The aim of the
training was to enhance utilization of non-custodial sentences by the courts, empower
magistrates on how to handle and manage stress that come with the work they do to
promote objective decisions during trials and assess the implementation of the Bond &
Bail and Sentencing Policies. From the training, it was noted that magistrates require
psychosocial support, which will be advocated for in the next phase. Magistrates
appreciated the stress management training and recommended that there should be
more training on facilitating them as human beings and not on the law, they deal with
on a daily basis. Fifty-three (53) judicial officers (28 Males & 25 females out of which
20 were youth) benefitted from the training. Magistrates underwent group therapy to
help them relieve their stress and leant skills on how they can remedy piling stress on
their own
3. The strengthening of security sector
Through capacity building of community policing units in Nairobi, Nakuru and

Kericho. The various member of the community policing units were trained on their
role, reporting mechanisms and implementations of their decisions. LRF has noted
an increased confidence of the public in the Nyumba Kumi initiative resulting to
improved security in the catchment areas.
4. The strengthening of gender and children protection units
In Kilimani, Kayole, Kangemi, Bondeni, Nakuru central, Kisumu central and Kondele
police stations was conducted during the reporting period. The support included
training of officers operating the children and gender desks, physical improvement of
the units and making the units more child friendly. Because of this, the police are now
able to safeguard the best interest and welfare of any child who encounters the law in
any way.
5. Informing the operationalization of the Small Claims Court Act
LRF since 2009 has been piloting the use of small claims courts in Turkana County.
With the Act now in place and need for regulations being forefront, LRF has been
working closely with the rules committee of the judiciary in providing information
and lessons learnt in order to come up with watertight regulations for the small claims
court that would serve access to justice and longevity of time.
LRF has also been training the Turkana CUC, the elders, chiefs and paralegals on the
provisions of the act so that even with the rules being operationalized the court can
take off quickly and strongly to serve justice issues for local communities.
6. Informing realization of policy on Alternative Justice Systems in Kenya
Following the post-election violence (PEV) in 2008 LRF participated in peace restoration
process in Kericho, which led to establishment of community justice systems. LRF
carefully selected Community Justice System (CJS) actors and community Paralegals
from the three major communities in Kipkelion were trained on relevant topics such
as human rights, land law, conflict management and alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, transitional justice, peace building, among other relevant topics. The
trainings were undertaken in order to appropriately capacitate the selected individuals
for their role. This has been replicated in Baringo, West Pokot counties Pursuant to
TOR on bench-marking existing models of Alternative Justice Systems, to capacitate
them and observe them, AJS Taskforce has made visits to Kericho to document their
functioning and to glean best practices. Kericho and West Pokot systems provide good
lessons for autonomous AJS models.
Following the engagement with elders in the three counties of Baringo, Kericho and West
Pokot LRF has in 2018 produced and distributed registers for documentation of cases
handled in the autonomous AJS. LRF intends to share the registers with the Judiciary at the
appropriate time.
7. LRF has been supporting the Special Taskforce on Children
LRF is a substantive member of the taskforce and has been ploughing back information
harnessed from its program work/ initiatives to inform the realization of the taskforce’s
mandate. Through its, paralegals LRF engages the local communities on what should
be included in the review of the child justice regime and inform the review process.
LRF also supported a retreat of the taskforce to finalize on the children’s’ act review
process. This saw the taskforce realize a comprehensive Children Bill 2017 that will
comfortably be exposed to public participation.
8. Support to the Sexual Offences Special Taskforce
LRF supported a retreat for the taskforce. At the meeting it was established that there
serious issues that needed to be addressed for the committee to realize its mandate.
These include loss of membership, inadequate resources, the lack of clear mandate and
lost committee momentum. As such, the meeting mapped an action plan that includes
need to redefine the mandate of the committee, develop new terms of reference,
constitute a strengthened committee with a judge as its chair person, gazette the
committee and allocate adequate resources to the committee.
9. Decongesting case backlog through plea agreements and mediation
LRF paralegals have been spearheading. The paralegals and trainers have been building
the capacity of pre-trial inmates and justice actors on the use of plea agreements to
fast track trial of cases. This has been though partnership with the office of DPP and
support from the US Embassy. Through the use of plea agreements especially during
the children service weeks we have seen hundreds of cases fast tracked. Further, the
paralegals have been conducting victim offender mediation for those caught up in the
justice chain. This has seen numerous cases amicably resolved and withdrawn from
the justice system. There is need to popularize the use of plea agreements among the
state counsels, judicial officers, advocates, litigants and the general public for it to
have a major output in reducing the national burden of case backlog.
10. The establishment of the court counsel office
In Makadara Law Courts which uses civilian paralegals to provide first instance legal
aid and/or assistance to litigants who do not understand court processes and the
criminal trial procedure. This has seen hundreds of litigant navigate the justice system
adequately equipped to safeguard their rights.
Despite the efforts made within the CJS, a few challenges persist that predisposed the
weak and indigent in our society to frequent interact with the CJS. These challenges
must be addressed if we are to transform the justice system.
Challenges within the Community Justice System:

The 2010 Constitution of Kenya ushered in a new dawn especially on matters human rights.
An elaborate and progressive chapter on bill of rights is therein provided with emphasis
on access to justice. Article 47 (1) provides for the right to administrative action that is
expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, while article 48 is on right
to access justice. Further, Article 49 and 50 of the Constitution enunciates safeguards to
pre-trail detention by placing time limit spent in police custody13, cautioning arrested
persons against self-incrimination14, placing time limit on production in court15, making
all offences bail able subject to compelling reasons16, classifying offences to which one
cannot be remanded in custody17, going short to placing time limit on the time cases take
before conclusion18 and provision of legal representation19. The Constitution further operates
in cognizance of presence of general rules of international law and treaty or conventions
ratified by Kenya20.
Despite the promise and safeguards made by the constitutional provisions, numbers and
persons finding their way to pretrial detention continue to adopt an upward trajectory. The
CJS Audit report established that Kenya’s prison system has an official population capacity of
26757, yet the current remand population is approximately 23,000, which translates to 85%
of the official capacity. The audit further confirmed that, 70% of offences being subjected
to the criminal justice system are petty offences, which therefore means, safe guards to
pretrial detention are not working as they were envisioned.
The criminal justice system has been audited as wanting in respect to some aspects of the
quality of legal provisions, prosecution, judgment, and conditions of detention as outlined
below:
Police Stations
A key finding from the audit study is that the flow of the people deprived of liberty, and
cases through the criminal justice system, follows an inverted pyramid shape. At the police
station, 68% of the entries in police cells are cases related to drunk and disorderly behavior,
property offences; state regulated offences, loitering, disturbance and nuisance, and cases
involving children in need of care and protection. The audit further established that, 45%
of the police arrest were effected during the weekends, with the highest rate of release from
police cells equally being effected during weekends.
13 Article 49(f) i, ii
14 Article 49(d)
15 Article 49(f) i,ii
16 Article 49 (h)
17 Article 49(2)
18 Article 50(1) (e)
19 Article 50(g) (h)
20 Article 2(5)(6)
A disturbing fact is that 64% of pre-trial detainees in police cells had no reason for release
recoded in the cell register, or the occurrence book, raising questions about their manner of
release. The audit further finds that only 32 % of police entries were converted to charges; of
which 70% were petty offences.
The audit further indicates that large numbers of people are arrested and detained in police
cells in Kenya, suggesting around 5,000 people per police station per year on average21.
This number does not include people accosted or harassed by the police but not ultimately
detained in police cells.
As Kenya is a demographically young country, these numbers are likely to represent a large
proportion of the adult population being arrested and detained in cells each year. While it
may be argued that this is appropriate in a relatively high-crime country, analysis reveals
that a large proportion of these arrests and detentions are not in relation to common law
crimes which concern the public, such as theft. The largest categories are offences defined
by the state relating to the regulation of commercial activity, whether it is sales of alcohol or
other contraband, and the protection of state forests or wildlife, and the like. Such offences
do not have “complainants “or victims, other than the state itself. The high volumes of these
offences are suggestive of a high degree of policing, as they only come to detention through
the exercise of police action.
10.27 DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION (DPP)
The study establishes that appeal matters at the high court recorded high overturn rate
with 45% of the appeals lodged resulting in either liberty, reduced or increased sentence,
retrial or change of conviction. This raises serious questions into the quality of prosecution
in Kenya.
The audit establishes a very low rate of prosecution of more serious offences e.g. Violent
offences 11%, sexual offences 2%, drug offences 2%,22 This could be due to arrests occurring
without sufficient cause, or because of withdrawals of complaints or because of unwillingness
to prosecute difficult cases.
On the magistrates’ courts, a relatively low rate of convictions for serious offences is
observed. This raises the need for the police and director of public prosecutions (DPP) to
work in harmony so as to ensure proper prosecution of cases.
With the current revamp of the ODPP, there has been massive recruitment of advocates to
become prosecutors. Most of the advocates recruited are young and didn’t have prerequisite
experience. This has raised serious questions on the quality and outcome of prosecuted
matters. There is thus need for the ODPP to initiate a rapid mentorship programme for the
prosecutors, as he also prepares to start a prosecution academy.
It has also been observed that prosecutors do not have facilities where they could conduct
pre-trial conferences. This is so serious especially when it comes to prosecution of matters
involving children as victims of crime or as witnesses.
21 Criminal Justice System in Kenya: An Audit (Understanding pretrial detention in relation to case flow manage-
ment and conditions of detention)
22 Criminal Justice system in Kenya: page 102 and 103
10.28 JUDICIARY
The audit further suggests that, 70% of cased being referred to court are petty offences23
with 32% being state regulated offences24. This therefore means too much pressure is placed
on judicial officers to preside over matters which would otherwise have been dealt with
through alternative means and more emphasis placed in dealing with serious offences. The
audit further suggested the said matters took an average of 2.9 years to be completed, with
an average of 15,000 being the available cash bail an amount which is way too high to a
normal Kenyan bearing in mind the average income is Kshs 12,000.
In respect to right to bail as per Article 49 (1) (h) Constitution of Kenya, where its provided
that an arrested person has right to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions,
pending a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released; the audit
established that bail occurred only on 8% of the cases in the magistrates’ courts. Breaking it
down further, only some 15 % of violent offences and 11% of property offences were granted
bail. Data also indicated that those who get bail are less likely to result into a guilty verdict.
On sentencing audit findings indicate high use of fines and/or imprisonment at 48%;
imprisonment alone at 20%, while alternatives to detention were used minimally
(community service orders at 19%, probation at 9% and suspended sentence at less 1%). Yet
data indicates that lesser offences (which would otherwise attract non-custodial sentences)
are more likely to attract guilty verdicts as compared to serious offences.
The audit findings also indicated there exists the problem of a great deal of variation amongst
the magistrates’ courts surveyed here, in terms of all trends interrogated, implying that
Kenya’s can expect to face very different justice depending on where they are located. There
is evidence to suggest that while almost two –thirds of the cases are resolved relatively
quickly, very long durations between plea and judgment may apply to a third of cases, with
more serious cases generally taking longer to resolve.
In respect to children matters, those in conflict with the law continue to pursue their cases
without the representation of advocates, as fewer advocates are willing to pick up cases on
pro bono basis. It was also established that there are more children in prison on remand
rather than in children remand home as required by the law as a matter of last resort.
Children matters delay in court for an average of 2 years, limiting their right to education and
development as a child. If as a country we can limit election petition to strictly 6 months,
the same should apply to children if we are serious in ensuring the ‘best interest and welfare
of the child’.
Most Courts have courtrooms that are unfriendly to children. There are no witness protection
boxes in majority of the courtrooms in the country.
23 Offences classified as not serious
24 A category of some prominence in Kenya (as opposed to similar studies in Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique
in which they were all but absent) was the category of “state offences”, which arose out of analysis of the
data. Grouped into this category are all offences where the offence has been defined by the state in terms of
legislation, mostly in legislation outside of the Penal Code. These offences typically do not have a complainant
other than the state itself and typically relate to the regulation of formal or informal economic activity, where a
particular state interest is being protected, such as regulation of alcohol use and protection of the environment.
On subordinate courts:
In the Court Martial it was observed that the right to public hearing is infringed on since
members of the public are barred from attending the hearings. There is also no option of
cash bond/bail during trial, and convictions are generally without an option of a fine.
All the aforementioned problems are finally cascaded downwards to the Prison system.
Prison
It was a finding of the audit25 that 75% of pretrial are ordinary Kenyans between the ages of
18- 35 years. This therefore means, three quarters of the total population of pretrial detainees
are at the peak of their earning potential. The holding of so many possibly productive
persons who may never be found guilty on remand is counter-developmental and costly for
the Kenyan state. The audit further found that, most of the pretrial will spend exceptionally
long time in detention; of which is by no means a guarantee they will ever be convicted,
with only 53% of pretrial detainees being found guilty. Indeed, the most serious offences
for which people are held the longest on remand has the lowest conviction rates i.e. 5% for
sexual offences and 13% for robbery with violence cases. Furthermore, in relation to far
more serious offences, even if convicted, many of these will eventually succeed on appeal.
Another issue, which this audit brings fore, and which should be of great concern, is the
interface between children and the criminal justice system. The data shows that more
children are admitted to prisons in remand than are admitted in children’s remand homes.
On conditions of detention, it was an overall finding that, facilities holding persons deprived
of liberty are generally old, limited in space and majority were constructed during the
colonial era. Their architecture negates against compliance with domestic and international
law standards pertaining to conditions of detention.
There exists variation in the responses describes how deaths in custody are investigated, as
such deaths arising from torture becomes very difficult to establish26.
Recommendations
As a stakeholder in the CJS we make the following recommendation based on our experience
in the criminal justice coupled by the findings of the CJS audit report:
1. AG/KLRC Fast track the courts of petty sessions; amend the provisions of the small
claims court especially on the place of paralegals replacing the advocates in court;
enact the bail act.
2. AG: Operationalization of the National Legal Aid Service (NLAS) and development of
the legal aid regulations
3. JUDICIARY: Operationalization of the small claims court once amended.
4. NPS and DCS: To review of the national police act and children’s act to provide for
child protection units; the NPS to review the police service standing orders to provide
for legal aid units.
25 Criminal Justice System in Kenya: An Audit (Understanding pretrial detention in relation to case flow man-
agement and conditions of detention)
26 Criminal Justice system in Kenya: An audit- page 300.
5. NCAJ: Finalization of the AJS policy guidelines and its operationalization.
6. NCAJ: Implementation of the sentencing policy guidelines
7. NCAJ: Sensitization of the public on the provisions of the various policies: Bail and
bond; sentencing; amongst others.
8. AG & KLRC: Take administrative action on state regulated offences by reviewing the
law to allow them be dealt with
9. administratively, rather than criminalising the same.
10. NCAJ: Conduct a national research on the social economic impacts of subjecting state
regulated offences to the criminal justice system.
11. NCAJ: Conduct a national audit on the effects of the CJS to the victims and witnesses
of crimes.
12. NCAJ to conduct a national audit of the state of children in the criminal justice system.
13. Judiciary/JTI and DPP: to conduct sensitization forums for judicial officers and
prosecutors on case management.
14. NCAJ/ TREASURY: Boost the financing of state department which are under-funded,
namely: probation, children and prisons department.
15. TREASURY: To increase legal aid fund.
16. NCAJ: Lobby for the placement of the department of children services under Home
Affairs Ministry.
17. PRISONS/ KLRC/ AG: Fast track the review of Cap 90 prisons Act and Cap 92 on Borstal
Institutions Act.
18. NATIONAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT: To develop societal interventions to address

the plight of children in conflict with the law and at risk of committing crime.
19. NCAJ: To develop an Integrated data management system for the whole CJS.
20. NCAJ/ LRF: To conduct a research on best desirable approach to adolescent’s sexuality
without having to resort to criminal proceedings.
21. CORRECTIONAL SERVICES/ KPS/NPS/ Ministry of health/ department of children

services: To conduct significant investment to address the infrastructural shortcomings
at the police stations, prisons, children remand home, Mathare mental hospital and
court holding cells to meet the minimum standards.
22. NCAJ/ JUDICIARY: Set up clear administration standard guidelines to address court
holding cells.
10.29 REPORTS FROM COURT USERS COMMITTEES
COURT MEETINGS ACHIEVEMENTS CHALLENGES

HELD
BARICHO 4 1. Good working relationship between 1. No funding for two quarters
the court and the stakeholders
2. Time Factor
2. Enabled the areas of improvement
3. Inconsitent attendance of
3. Renovation of customer care service CUC meetings due to effects
desk of transfers and leave of
absence
4. Fixation of signages for direction
5. Achieved the minimum number of

quartely meetings
BOMET 8 1. Co-operation with stakeholders 1. There is a need to have the
which has seen smooth running of fence of Bomet G.K. Prison
Court operations generally reinforced so as to accom-
modate capital offenders
2. Reduction of case backlog who are held currently at
3. Reduced adjournment of cases Kericho G.K. Prison about
70kms away
2. No women prison in Bomet

and the female remandees
are held in Kericho Women
Prison about 70kms away
3. No holding area for children

at the Bomet police station
BONDO 4 1. Better working relationship between 1. 1.Insufficient funding
the courtand the stakeholders
2. Late rease of funds especial-
2. Easier identification of problems ly for the first quarter
hence quick response in resolving
them 3. Inconsistent membership
and attendance
3. Needs for the stakeholders were
catered for in a timely manner 4. Some members do not
perform agreed tasks.
4. Expeditious delivery of justice due to
coordination with stakeholders
5. Prison issues as regards welfare and

court attendance were addressed.
BUNGOMA 1. Improved understanding and 1. Lateness
cooperation between court users.
2. Inconsistency in attendance
2. Improved efficiency in service by individual members
delivery 3. Lack of adequate funds to
support the C.U.C activities
HELD
BUSIA 4 1. Benches had been placed at the 1. No waiting place where liti-
corridors to assist litigants and mem- gants and members of pub-
bers of public to sit and they wait to lic can sit while waiting for
be served. their cases to be mentioned
or be served in any way.
2. The court had ordered for quality
folders yet to be supplied by the 2. No provision or a room set
supplier aside for nursing mothers.
They are forced to nurse
their babies in public as
they wait to be served.
3. No children friendly envi-

ronment where children
who come to court can play,
relax or even read books as
they wait for their parents
or guardians.
4. No quality folder which

results to being torn and
some documents or pages
of proceedings go missing
BUTALI 1 1. 1. Sensitize members of public on 1. Insufficient funding.
ADR
2. Reimbursement of fare for
2. Basic traffic rules. participant.
BUTERE 12 1. Increased awareness by local admin- 1. Delay in receiving monies
istation on topical issues of concern, for CUC activities during the
in particular, the Succession process 1st quarter.
as well as reintergration of offenders
back into society. 2. Sustained provision of print-
ing paper and toner for the
2. Increased awareness among offend- photocopier.
ers on the importance of reintegra-
tion back into society upon comple- 3. Lack of facilitation (allow-
tion of sentences. ances) for CUC members.
3. Increased awareness among boda

boda operators on road safety, traffic
laws as well as the Sexual Offences
Act.
4. Access to witness statements by re-

mandees.
CHUKA 4 1. Creating awareness by holding judi- 1. Lack of financial resources
cial open and morning briefings.
2. Untrained members of CUC
2. Prison visits twice in a month.
3. Lengthy cause lists
3. Displaying of customer service
charter to litigants and members of 4. Absconding of suspects
public. 5. Failure to avail witnesses
6. Ignorance of litigants
7. Lack of policy amongst

stakeholders
HELD
ELDAMA – 6 1. Chiefs were sensitized on the Law of 1. Delay in disbursement of
RAVINE Succession Act and Anti FGM Act funds
2. Litigants, accused persons and the 2. Rigid cultural practices such

public have been sensitized on their as FGM
rights under the constitution i.e
court processes and procedures . 3. Most of the court users lack
information and knowledge
3. Enhanced stakeholders engange- of the law
ment
4. Exclusion of married daugh-
4. Revenue has increased due to in- ters from succession
creased litigation
5. There is a reduction of complains

from remandees
ELDORET 3 1. Reached out to the public 1. Limited funding for meet-
ings
2. Reached out to staff and advocates
instantly 2. Late disbursements of funds
EMBU 3 1. Began constructionof the child pro- 1. Lack of government analyst
tection unit. reports.
2. Embu prison de-congestion carried 2. Lack funding for training of

out CUC.
3. Lack of consumables.
3. Completeion of new court building
(First floor and Ground floor 100%)
and lift installation.
GARISSA 4 1. Facilitated witness attendance to 1. Insufficient funding for wit-
court through funding of transport ness expenses occasioned
by the vastness ofthe coun-
2. Trained prosecutors and other CUC ty
members on enhanced coordination
in handling sexual offences cases 2. Constant need for training
and awareness on the sexu-
3. Purchase of Photpcopier and printer al offences law
for printing of witness statements
3. Lack of funds for repair and
4. CUC meetings were conductedin ev- maintenance of the printer
ery quarter and photocopier together
with related accessories
4. Limited funding for CUC

members
GATUNDU 4 1. Holding 4 meetings without any 1. Lack of funds to run the
funding whatsoever from JPIP activities
2. Decongestion of prisons by review- 2. Low turnout for the mem-
ing bail terms and encouraging me- bers
diation
3. Police swoops that lead to
3. Conclusion and clearance of many serious congestion of pris-
matters ons by remandees facing
minor charges
GITHONGO 4 1. The 2 tanks were installed 1. Insufficent funds
2. Signage erected
HELD
GITHUNGURI 4 1. Constructionof resting bay for court 1. Lack finanaces to enable
users visits to the localcommunity
or purchase gifts
2. A visit to a children’s home
2. Negative attitude towards
3. Sensitization for the local community the court
on court progress and procedures
3. Poor attendance
4. Plea-bargaining has increased lead-
ing to withdrawalofmany cases
5. Capacity building training for prose-

cutors andinvestigating officers
6. Held open days

HAMISI 4 1. Demystify the court operation 1. Lack of funding for the
amongst community members; stu- Court Users Committee
dents and pupils. during the period under
review.
2. The community attained knowledge
on the Sexual Offences Act and the 2. Lack of adequate fuel to en-
procedures to be followed when able the team to effectively
a sexual offence occurs within the to carry out the outreach
community. program within the com-
munity
3. The law enforcers gained knowledge
on how to handle sexual offences
victims
4. Development of linkages and im-

proved coordination between var-
ious agencies within the criminal
justice system.
ITEN 2 1. Remandee sensitization. 1. Inadequate funding of CUC
activities.
2. Erection of Signage, Notice board
and Water Tank. 2. Lack of stipend allowance to
members of CUC.
3. Backlog reduction.
4. Fostering strong inter agency work-

ing relationship
KAJIADO 5 1. Construction of new ablution facili- 1 Lack of enough sitting space
ties for members of staff and mem- for members of staff
bers of the public
2 Insufficient resources to
2. Excellent working relationship with attend to infrastructural
other stakeholders in the justice challenges
system
3 Lack of enough secretaries
and other cadres of mem-
bers of staff
HELD
KAKAMEGA 5 1. CUC members paid a visit to divine 1. Non-prioritization of CUC
providence children’s home where activities by custodian
donations were made to the children
and members sensitized on child 2. Delayed and under funding
protection matters on 30.10.2017 of projected activities/bud-
get precipitates none per-
2. Public forum on and the ground formed tasks by the CUC
breaking event for the high court
construction project in October, 2017 3. Secretariat operations limit-
ed due to non funding
3. Public form on stone laying of the
high court building under construc- 4. Justice delivery hampered
tion by the CJ on 12.2.2018 by resource inadequacies
of other CJS partners and
4. Courtesy meeting with ICJ-K and CUC judiciary itself especially
Kakamega as follow up on civic edu- delay in witness statements,
cation held in July, 2017. “Reflection mobile court in Navakholo
forum on ICJ-K engagement with the ceased to operate, follow
Judiciary and CUC on election dis- upto CSO work sites not im-
pute resolution.” Output information plemented, capacity build-
sharing and proposal made on fur- ing of stakeholders- chiefs,
ther engagement with CUC/ICJ-K CSO supervisors
5. Special CUC meeting to address the 5. Inadequate staff in CJS
plight of the child in the criminal jus- stakeholders e.g children
tice system process on 18.12.2017 services, Judiciary
6. On 16.11.2017 crime prevention, land
and succession sensitization program
to offenders serving community sen-
tences (Probation/CSO) jointly with
prison inmates who were engaged
in self-reflection and theater as an
offender trauma healing process. The
open forum presided over by the
presiding judge courtesy probation
officer Kakamega central.
7. Civic education forum at golf hotel

on 27.7.2017 where political aspi-
rants, public members, teachers,
IEBC, ICJ-K, CUC Members attended.
Stake holders sensitized on lection
preparedness and election legal re-
quirements
HELD
KALOLENI 3 1. The chairlady managed to visit three 1. Insufficient Fuel funds to
schools; Chanagande, Kizurini and ferry the chairlady and her
Kinani primary schools and the team to more schools within
pupils and their teachers greatly the region.
benefited from the sensitization pro-
gramme. 2. Most of the litigants are illit-
erate thus cannot read and
2. A bond and bail booklet was created comprehend the contents of
by the chairlady and her staff mem- the booklet.
bers to help guide the stakeholders
and litigants in the bond and bail
process in both English and Kiswa-
hili.
3. Payment through M-Pesa has made

work easier thus alleviating the risk
of cash loss.
KANDARA 8 1. There is harmony and motivation of 1. Heavy workload for the 2

staff through team building hence Judicial officers
improved output
2. Insufficient ICT equipment
2. Through meetings the LMT made
decision on purchase of various 3. Lack of adequate furniture
station needs and addressed issues 4. Lack of sufficient enough
concerning staff funds for station needs
3. Reduction of backlog on children 5. Lack of enough working
matters as a result of the service space
weeks
6. Power outages in the area
4. Through Google calendar communi-
cation to lawyers has become effi- 7. Lack of training among staff
cient and effective
5.Reduction of backlog as matters 8. Lack of gender balance with
are handled through ADR as per the more female staff at the
constitution. station
5. Smooth running of the station and 9. Slow progress of construc-

proper utilization the available re- tion of new court building
sources. with an uncooperative con-
tractor
KANGEMA 4 1. 1. The CUC has brought stake-hold- 1. Financial constraints
ers together enhancing delivery of
justice 2. Compliance of the Govern-
ment Financial Regulations
2. Smoothens communication among
agencies 3. Apathy of some stake hold-
ers.
3. The CUC demystifies the operations
of the judiciary
4. The CUC promotes Alternative Jus-

tice System
HELD
KANGUNDO 4 1. Sufficient provision of water at the 1. Limited funding by Govern-
station ment of Kenya and JPIP
2. Reaching to the community 2. Low turning of members
3. Sensitizing the public on the court 3. Limited finance

process
KAPENGURIA 2 1. Street children census conducted 1. Funding of the CUC meet-
successfully conducted CUC open ings. The amount of Ksh
day at Makutano 20,000 allocated was not
sufficient for conducting
2. Inspected GK prison and made rec- quarterly CUC meetings
ommendations
2. Lack of fund to facilitate the
3. Conducted CUC Trainings and CUC activities.
Trained prosecutors, police, prisons,
medical officers and local elders on 3. JPIP Guidelines did not
filling medical documents, collection permit payment of facilita-
and preservation of evidence, exe- tors and reimbursement of
cution of warrants,ADR among other transport to trainees. The
issues trainees were drawn from
the entire West Pokot di-
4. Procured and installed water tank visions and incurred travel
and pump expenses.
5. Procured and installed customer care
and waiting bay tent
6. Met the Governor West Pokot County

regarding land, presented the pro-
posal. He promised to provide land
KAPSABET 3 1. Acquired the High Court Building 1. Interference by the county
Plan. officials as a result of coordi-
nation on their part (Which
2. The vice has considerably gone down led to encroachment/
having employed. Introduction of a road and
3. Reshuffles and transfers of staff have removal of beacons.)
been initiated thus bringing calm; 2. Lack of cooperation by the
corruption allegations have im- police in ensuring the police
mensely gone down. files are brought to court for
4. All proposed projects were carried trials.
out, That is: Roofing of the Male 3. The funding was minimal.
cells, Acquiring a multi functional
printer, Toners and photocopying 4. The funding was minimal.
papers were well utilized for the
witness statements, Witnesses were
paid in immediately, The training of
prosecutors and Investigating offi-
cers was carried out well,
KARATINA 3 1. Enhanced stakeholders’ engagement. 1. Time constraints hence
rushing through topics.
2. Capacity building amongst CUC
members. 2. Lack of follow-up on imple-
mentation.
3. Awareness creation on SOA Act.
3. Insufficient funds
4. CUC challenges addressed.
4. Lack of motivation for facil-
itators.
HELD
KEHANCHA 3 1. Visit to Komotobo Rescue Centre 1. Inadequate funding.
Research by CUC members the inte-
gration of Female Genital mutilation 2. Late reimbursement of CUC
victims to the institution and school. funds.
To know how the Institution is han-
dling the victims or rescued girls and
their approach towards the vice.
Educating members of public not
engaging in FGM activities.
Visit to Migori GK Prison - The in-
mates were counseled by CUC stake-
holders on the importance of not
breaking the Law.
They were given life social skills on
how to live harmoniously with other
community members,
Adoption of CDF Solar Floodlight at
the Gate premise. - Security lighting
that is solar powered guaranteed
light at the Court gate.
Non Governmental Organization
called ADRA to step up its sensitiza-
tion with support from stakeholders.
Proper investigations for the perpe-
trators by the Police to have a water
tight case.
Ministry of Health to develop youth
friendly centers so as to sensitize the
public of the vice and to train clini-
cians on how to fill forms relating
to fgm cuTo Organized more sensi-
tization meetings against the vice
through Chiefs barazas,
KERICHO 3 1. 1. Managed to repossess the Judicia- 1. Lack of photocopy machine
ry land at Kipkellion (forces the court to use its
machine and toner meant
2. Managed to cub deforestation in the for the station work)
water catchment
2. Challenge in availing wit-
3. Improvement on the issuance of witness statements due tolack-
ness statements to accused persons. of photocopying papers
3. Lack of enough funds to

4. Through the cuc the land at Sosiot- organize prison visits.
was recovered and the county gov-
ernment agreed to donate land in 4. Some chiefs did not attend
other areas within the county and therefore miss the op-
portunity to learn.
5. Conducted anexercise to decongest-
ing of the prison. 5. Limited funds led to having
less comprehensive train-
6. Sensistisation of the the public on ings
the process and the requirements of
filing succession matters.
HELD
KERUGOYA 3 1. Drastic reduction in complaints of 1. Delays to get government
missing files and office of Judiciary chemist reports
Ombudsman.
2. No womens prison within
2. Increased work output. Kirinyaga County
3. No childrens remand home

within Kirinyaga County.
4. Pro bono advocates do not

visit murder suspects in
prison. However the issue
was addressed in the Bar/
bench meeting.
KIAMBU 2 1. Training of Chiefs-training had been 1. Funding
organized for all the chiefs within There are no children and
the jurisdiction of the court on the women cells at Kiambu Law
succession law and procedures. It Courts for the children in
had been facilitated by Hon. Justice conflict with law. There is
David Majanja. This will lead to re- need to facilitate the avail-
duction of case backlog when the ability of the same through
chiefs are trained on the relevant in- new construction or parti-
formation expected from the chiefs’ tioning the existing building
letters on succession. for the cells.
2. Due to involvement of court users There is need for an archive
there has been an improved pro- store where finalized case
duction of witness statements to files will be kept.
accused persons. Some departments A canopy for the holding
had donated reams to facilitate the areas in the cells is required
availability upon request namely; so as to prevent the offend-
Kiambu Court, Kiambu County, ers to be rained on.
Kiamumbi Police, Kiambu Prison and
Kiambu Police.
3. Prevalent cases of child abandon-

ment had been appropriately han-
dled through the involvement of the
police, the court and the children
office.
4. Quarterly reports from various de-

partments on issues which they
should action on had led to the ful-
fillment of the court CUC Agendas
and matters arising in the county.
HELD
KIBERA 8 1. 1.Improvements by some police sta- 1. Substantive officers rarely
tions on bonding of witnesses and attend meetings
bringing police files to court on time
2. Chief’s reluctant to super-
2. More non-custodial sentences noted vise CSO
3. Most accused persons have now 3. Lack of legal counsel for

been requesting for Plea Bargaining accused during plea bar-
of their cases gaining
4. Participants learnt about small claim, 4. Lack of society understand-

when to institute them, how much, ing of the law
period from filing to judgment
5. Introduction of new forms to facil-

itate prosecutionof sexual offences
cases
KIGUMO 4 1. Acquisition of JPIP funding for LCD 1. Non representation of both
screen for dissemination of informa- the Govt. analyst and police
tion to clients. surgeon at regional level
2. Realization of SJT strategy at station
3. Involvement of stake holders in re-

duction of case
4. Involvement of stake holders in at-

taining service timelines and attain-
ing a zero corruption score
5. Involvement of station commanders

and investigating officers in follow
up on the exhibits
HELD
KIKUYU 5 1. Improved working relations and pri- 1. Lack of a station motor ve-
oritising of station activities. hicle.
2. Held three successsful trainings. 2. Very poor drainage system.
3. Lack of a water tank

3. Improved stakeholders engagement.
4. Lack of a title deed for the
4. Improved work methods. judiciary land
5. Inadequate working space

(small registry and no room
to serve as court 3)
6. Few number of judicial of-

ficers (we have two perma-
nent and one visiting)
7. Jurisdiction issues (we serve

2 sub counties (Kikuyu and
Kabete and parts of another
two (kiambaa and dagoret-
ti) and we have a principal
magistrate and a resident
magistrate.
8. Out of service 20kva and

2pcs of 5kva ups and un ser-
viced generator.
9. Lack of enough furniture

and equipments.
10. Late release of funds.
11. Poor status of the child pro-

tection unit at kikuyu police
station.lack of police lorry to
transport remandees to and
from remand centres.
KILGORIS 3 1. Appreciation from the public on the 1. Lack of Finanaces to cater
openness of the Judiciary for CUC members transport
expenses
2. Constructive enaggement resulting
to cordial work relations
3. A tool of awareness on the perfor-

mance of the judiciary and the stake-
holders
KILIFI 5 1. Successful installation of the PA 1. Late disbursement of the
System thus improving the audibility allocation as it came in the
and communication between the last quarter.
Court Officers and clients.
2. Having a fully operational customer

care tent thus improving Court - Cus-
tomer relations.
HELD
KILUNGU 2 1. Able to sensitize the supervisors 1. Failure by CUC members to
attend CUC meetings be-
2. Created a central supervisory area to cause of lack of transport to
collaborate with other supervisors venue of the meeting
and to oversee needy areas.
2. Supervisors did not know
3. Members visited various schools, their role as CSO Supervi-
hospitals and chief’s office to see the sors
achievements of CSO projects
4. Water tank cover sheds were con-

structed and the tanks are now pro-
tected
KIMILILI 4 1. Promote ADR 1. Inadequate funds for meet-
ings.
2. Improve case determination through
timely communication to witnesses 2. Lack of funding from both
GOK & JPIP
3. Budget
4. Lack of adequate funding
5. Delay in funding
KISII 4 1. Purchase of Computers and statio- 1. Incharge prisons do not
neries have assisted in typing, pho- provide monthly remandees
tocopying of statements of accused reports on time.
persons.
2. Lack of proper documen-
2. The prison visits have made it easier tation on the part of JPIP
for the CUC members to interact has made funding to be
with prisoners and address their inconsistent it is hard for us
concerns. to undertake some planned
projects
KISUMU 6 1. Better Case Management 1. Attendance of meetings by
some stakeholders disrupt-
2. Less land fraud cases reported ed due to long distances
3. Broadened CUC network with more covered without transport
actors reimbursement
4. More prtnerships with thecourt part- 2. Lack of statinery to prepare

cipating in activitiesand trainings appeal records
organised by other organisations 3. Warrants of arrest not be-
5. Greater interest among the stake- ing executed yet there were
holders to embrace ADR sureties in the case causing
withdrawal of cases
4. Lack of proper accounting

of children in theJuvenile
justice system
5. Dissapearance of exhibits
andcourt files
6. Mistrust between theJu-

diciary and the pro bono
lawyers
HELD
KITALE 4 1. Resolution Training of stakeholders 1. Frequent transfer of head of
of emerging issues in the administra- departments caused delay
tion of justice in resolution of issues
2. Resolution of conflict as it arises 2. Lack of Communication

of policy directions to all
3. Training of stakeholders in the the- stakeholders by CAJ leads
matic areas, clinical officers in filling to delay in implementation
P3 forms, Investigating Officers in of policies e.g the establish-
handlimg victims of sexual violence ment of sexual offenders
4. Successful children service weekand register
remandees service
5. Coordination with actors in the ad-

ministration of justice
6. Successfuloutreach programme in
Kiminini sub-county
7. Launch of Kachibora mobile court 8.

Purchase of multifunctional printer
9. Purchase and installation of two
10,000 litres tanks
10. Erection of signage
KITHIMANI 2 1. Completion of building of women 1. Inadequate funds to fit the
and children cell women and children cell
with a toilet
2. Improved issues of sanitation and
waiting bay capacity 2. Lacks of funds to establish a
mobile court
3. Pro bono services have been initiat-
ed with appointment of 3 advocates 3. Funding challenges in with-
to handle the matters in the justice sector
4. Enhanced stakeholder collaboration. 4. Increased need to fund pro
bono cases
5. Cases of minors being com-

promised are being reported
KYUSO 4 1. Abandoned /neglected minors have 1. Lack of funding hampered

a safe haven within the implementation of some of
the activies in the workplan
2. Disputes are now resolved amicably
within th community through ADR 2. Request for mobile court
was still awaited.
HELD
LAMU 3 1. Held community sensitization on the 1. The radio coverage is lim-
role of the court in the justice system ited to the island only. Far-
through a radio programme on Sifa flung areas like Faza are not
FM reached.
Long distances to get to the
2. Procured 7 office chairs for various station which demoralises
offices in the court participants
2. Low attendance to CUC

meetings by members due
to vastness of the island.
Members from remote areas
like Kiunga find it hard to
attend meetings regularly.
LIMURU 3 1. Well attended meetings 1. Lack of funds
LODWAR 3 1. Held 3 CUC meetings for the Finan- 1. Lack of funds to finance the
cial year under review venue for holding meetings
2. Visisted GK prison Lodwar and were 2. Lack of sufficient vehicles
able to initiate criminal review of to transport remandees
various cases tocourt
3. Enhanced production of remandees 3. Low literacy levels inhibit
in court free flow of information to
stakeholders
4. Charters and notices have been dis-
played on the notice board and sug- 4. Slow construction of the
gestion box erected infrong of the rescue centre
administration block 5
5. A construction of a rescue centreby

the County Government is ongoing
LOITOKTOK 2 1. Better appreciation of the work of 1. Lack of funding
the CUC by the memsbers of public
HELD
MAKADARA 5 1. Improved working relations by set- 1. Number of police stations
ting up of procedures, processes and covered by the court.
practices.
2. Frequent transfers of police
2. Setting goals as a CUC through officers.
multi-agency collaboration on reduc-
tion of backlog ledto improved coor- 3. Volume of caseload
dination within departments. 4. Funding of CUC activities.
3. Efficient and effective service delivery 5. Photocopying of statements
by Multi--Agency reports for accused persons in re-
Setting up of pro bono committee. mand
4. Launch of Makadara CCUC.
5. Purchasing of children Toys and

snacks for children clients during the
community outreach at Mukuru kwa
Reuben
Introduction of Plea bargaining.
6. Streamlined communication through

creation of forms to be utilized by
remandees and respective court
7. Conducting of children Service week.
8. Prison Visits by CUC members.

MAKINDU 4 1. Stakeholders were more informed of 1. Lack of sufficient funds and
their roles allowance to members
2. Improved issuance of witnesses
statement to accused persons in
custody
3. Availability of police files and wit-

nesses during hearings.
4. Reduced adjournments.
HELD
MANDERA 4 1. Judiciary has been demystified: 1. Cases of (VAWG) violence
people habour no fear of the court against Women and Girls
system: they would prefer coming to are still prevalent
court if and when arrested by police.
2. Some sections of the society
2. Smooth working relationships be- still prefer the traditional
tween stakeholders Maslaha system which is
injurious to the victims and
3. A mobile court has been establish to does not protect the rights
cover areas of Rhamu and Elwak sub of the victim
counties
3. The large geographical area
means that many people
cannot access justice be-
cause of the distance they
have to travel to reach the
court or the police
4. Legal representation is lack-

ing in this area where most
victims are illiterate and do
not understand the court
processes
MARALAL 2 1. Successful capacity training for our 1. Lack of funding.
CUC members on how to fill the CUC
quarterly reporting templates by
CUC agencies.
2. Training on the enforcement of Wild-

life Conservation and Management
Act 2013, the place of Mediation in
the Judiciary, use of Identification
Parades and Doctrine of recent pos-
session in criminal trials and the en-
forcement of the Forest Conservation
and Management Act 2016.
3. A Whatsapp group was formed for

effective communication among CUC
members.
4. Expansion of the Committee to in-

clude Administration Police Service
5. Reduction of case backlog through

prioritization of hearing/dismissal of
old cases.
Procurement of an additional leased
printer for use in provision of wit-
ness statements to accused persons.
MARIAKANI 4 1. Inmates gain knowledge and get to 1. Insufficient funds
HELD
MARIMANTI 4 1. Construction of Exhibit Stores 1. Lack of funding on CUC
meetings from Judiciary
2. Construction of Children Protection Hqtrs.
Unit (CPU)
3. Purchase of Power Generator 6.5KVA 2. Stringent World Bank timeli-

ness on JPIP Funding
4. Purchase of Photocopier and issu-
ance of accused statements 3. Failure to get bill of quanti-
ties on time from M.O.P.W
5. Purchase of photocopying papers and Judiciary headquarters
6. Purchase of two 5000ltrs water
tanks
7. Promotion of Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR)
8. Promotion of Alternative Justice Sys-

tem (AJS)
9. Prison visits with detergents / clean-

ing materials for remandees.
MARSABIT 3 1. Had training on child protection 1. It was sponsered by EACH-
through the watotot we project that Right organisation
increased understanding and knowl-
edge on child rights
MASENO 4 1. Effective customer service after the 1. Poor attendance to meet-
constructionof the customer care ings attimes due to the
block long distance travelled by
members
2. Remandees are produced in court in
time unlike in the past 2. Lack of funds for transport
reimbursement
3. Unecessary adjournment reduced
4. Backlog has reduced greatly

5. Filing of P3 forms has improved
MAVOKO 5 1. Mavoko land acquisition 3 acre 1. Lack of funding
2. Trained CUC members
3. Improved relationship between stake

holders
HELD
MBITA 4 1. Trained CUC members on their roles, 1. Existence of social vices like
case management and on child pro- sexual and gender based
tection violence which need contin-
ual sensitization
2. Sensitized students on the danger of
drugs and on sexualoffences 2. Inadequate knowledge on
ADR and AJS
3. Increased reporting on sexual offens-
es cases attributted to sensitisation 3. Existence of many islands
onthe reporting procedures within the area which are-
many kilometeres away
4. Continuation ofmobile court in ma- from the main court hence
gunga due to networking with world the delay in finalization of
vision cases from these
5. The spirit of teamwork has increased 4. Delay in disbursement of
among stakeholders CUC funds
5. Lack of funds for CUC open

days
6. Lack of CUC secretariat for

coordinationof CUC activ-
ities
7. Inadequate personnel in the

office of the prosecution to
serve the two courts
8. Delay in reparing the Judi-

ciary vehicle
MERU 4 1. Several cases have been referred to 1. Members of the public and
AJS litigants not embracing AJS/
ADR due to lack of sensiti-
2. ICT equipment have reduced backlog zation.
and delay in providing proceedings.
2. There are no funds to main-
3. We provide copies of witness state- tain ICT equipment (com-
ment without delay. puter and printers.)
4. A portion has been identified to con- 3. Low participation of advo-
struct the children cell. cates in organizing Children
5. Organized Service week. service week.
4. In adequate funds for

pro-bono briefs
5. Inordinate delay for approv-

al of design for construction
of the children cells.
HELD
MILIMANI 1. Held regular CUC meetings. Active 1. Inadequate Funding for
LAW stakeholders engagements. CUCs: There are 7 High
Court Divisions, one ELC
2. Adopted Kangemi Primary School and 5 Magistrates’ sec-
for necessary assistance as part tions - Criminal, Children,
of co-operate social responsibility Anti-corruption City Court
and community outreach. Mem- each requiring independent
bers made individual contributions funding but only one alloca-
bought desks for the school and also tion made.
planted trees.
2. Delayed disbursement of
3. CM Milimani CUC with the a grant CUC funding leading to de-
from JPIP bought a photocopying lays in holding meeting and
machine for use by stakeholders. activities.
4. Witness statements are now readily 3. No customized toilets fa-
provided to accused persons hence cilities for Persons with
enhance to access to, and expedi- disabilities
tious delivery of justice.
5. Deputy Registrars have taken up

hearing of cases in the magistrates
Court thereby assisting reduce case
backlog. Now we operate 19 Crimi-
nal Courts including DRs and Traffic
Courts.
MILIMANI 4 1. Held regular CUC meetings. Active 1. 1. Inadequate funding for
CRIMINAL stakeholders engagements. the CUC
2. Adopted Kangemi Primary School 2. Delayed disbursement of
for necessary assistance as part CUC funding leading to de-
of co-operate social responsibility lays in holding meeting and
and community outreach. Mem- activities.
bers made individual contributions
bought desks for the school and also 3. No customized toilets fa-
planted trees. cilities for Persons with
disabilities
3. CM Milimani CUC with the a grant
from JPIP bought a photocopying
machine for use by stakeholders.
4. Witness statements are now readily

provided to accused persons hence
enhance to access to, and expedi-
tious delivery of justice.
5. Deputy Registrars have taken up

hearing of cases in the magistrates
Court thereby assisting reduce case
backlog. Now we operate 19 Crimi-
nal Courts including DRs and Traffic
Courts.
HELD
MILIMANI 7 1. Painting works and drawings for the 1. Lack of funds to implement
children court some activities
CHILDREN
2. Paid a visit to Kamiti juvenile prison
3. Held a training for probono ad-

vocates which was sponsored by
Pendekezo Letu Organization. 76
advocates qualified and were admit-
ted to the scheme.
4. Several cases have been resolved

through the mediation process and
thus reducing backlog
Paid a visit to Gitathuru rehabilita-
tion centre and delivered donations
by members of the CUC
5. Advocates donated mattresses,

clothes and cash to the children
holding unit
MOLO 4 1. Brings all court users together where 1. Inconsistent members
issues of mutual concern are ad-
dressed 2. Poor participation of stake-
holders in contribution to
2. It creates a smooth running of court committee matters
processes
3. There is the issue of non
3. Cliesnts are served better as a reult performing sub-committees
of addressing the challenges on allocated tasks
4. Members get to know each other 4. Lack of follow up on re-
one on one. solved issues
5. Reduction in the number of S.O 5. The chair is overwhelmed
cases with other judicial duties
6. Reduced case of FGM as a result of 6. Abrupt convening of CUC
sensitization of the public meetings
7. Reduced cases of burglary and illicit 7. Lack of enough stationary
brewers. for CUC activities
8. The area under our juris-

diction is vast and has poor
road network thus hindering
our services
9. There is no other charitable

organization to support our
efforts
MOYALE 4 1. Purchase and installation of water 1. Power outage in Moyale
tank. almost halt office activities.
2. Purchase of furniture for Sololo un-

der Moyale Mobile Court.
HELD
MUKURWEINI 4 1. Accused persons can now be sup- 1. Lack of proper funding in all
plied with witness statements. This CUC activities proposed e.g.
has reduced the number of adjourn- holding of public barazas,
ments made due to lack of witness funding of pro-bono ser-
statements leading to an increase of vices and CSR.
number of fresh cases heard on the
first day when cause listed.
2. Our clients can now access clean

drinking water. This has created con-
ducive environment to those mem-
bers of public seeking our services
making the court friendly.
3. Refurbished Waiting bay is friendly

to our customers.
4. Children cannot be mixed with

adults and the children’s lounge is
also friendly to minors in conflict
with the law.
5. The contractor undertaking construc-
tion of the new court building was
able to start the project as scheduled
due to facilitation of NEMA lead
expert conduct an Environmental
& Social Impact Assessment by the
CUC.
MUMIAS 4 1. Has held all meetings successfully 1. Inadequate courtsrooms for
all themagistrates
2. Frequent power
3. Lack of security structures

such as perimeter wall and
CCTV cameras
4. Lack of vehicles for the chil-

dren department to manage
their work. Inadequate
children officers serving the
county
5. Not driver available for the

probation department
6. Limited capacity by Inves-

tigating officers and prose-
cutors in prosecuting defile-
ment, child trafficking, cyber
crime, witness protection
and transboader cases
HELD
MWINGI 2 1. Construction of women and children 1. Inadequate funding
holding in the court compound.
2. Judicial officers over-
whelmed by court work
3. Non-attendance by some
key stakeholders
4. None or slow implementa-

tion of the CUC resolutions
by some stakeholders
NAIVASHA
NAKURU 4 1. Capacity building achieved 1. Limited funding
2. Improved stakeholder interaction 2. Shortage of prosecutors
3. Cases of missing police files has re- 3. Lack of Mediators to deal

duced with cases for Alternative
Dispute Resolution
4. Improvement in handling of children
cases since we have a Children’s CUC 4. Time constraints for effec-
which is a sub-committee which tive discussions
brings together all the stakeholders
dealing with Children’s cases.
5. Improved working relationship be-

tween the ODPP and the police
NANYUKI 4 1. Reduction in case backlog 1. Failure by police to bond
witnesses and avail police
2. Enhanced cooperation with stake- files
holders
2. Failure to produce state-
3. Better service delivery ments to accused persons
4. Reduction in number of people in on time
custody 3. Challenges in availing pre-
5. Sensitization on children matters bail reports
6. Special treatment of persons with 4. Frequent and unnecessary

disabilities adjournments by the pros-
ecution
7. Public engagements and prison visits
by the CUC 5. Lack of co-ordination by
various security agencies
8. Removal and placement of street especially on wildlife and
children environment related mat-
ters
6. Lack of cells for children

and women
7. Lack of witness protection

board
NAROK 4 1. Lack of funding
2. Lack of space
3. Lack of facilities
HELD
NDHIWA 2 1. The request for construction of the
children’s remand home has been
forwarded to the Homa bay County
offices
2. More police officers have been

trained on gender based violence 3
NGONG 1. Customer Care Tent. 1. Lack of holding cells
2. 1 Container which is being used as 2. Lack of enough space.

registries (criminal, traffic)
3. Lack of furniture, benches.
3. Purchasing of few benches.
4. Lack of store for keeping
exhibits
5. Lack of library.
NYAMIRA 2 1. 45 chiefs trained on ADR, Succession 1. Funding
matters, children matters.
2. Getting experienced train-
2. Disposal of cases through ADR has ers.
increased.
3. Low turnout of CUC mem-
3. Backlog of cases in court has re- bers.
duced due to ADR.
4. Number of complaints against chiefs

has reduced.
5. 30 CUC members trained on court

activities
OGEMBO 2 1. Improved accessibility of our court 1. Late disbursement of funds
through the erection of signages from JPIP to fund our CUC
meetings.
2. Improved efficiency amongst mem-
bers of staff. 2. Non attendance of some
key stakeholders.
3. Reduction of case backlog.
4. Improvement in availing of police

files to court.
OTHAYA 5 1. Students enlightened on Court Pro- 1. Lack of funding to support
cedures and applicable laws during programs
school sensitization programme
2. Lack of adequate funding
2. Reduction in criminal activities that to procure Photocopying
the youths engage in such as Arson, papers, Tonners and more
Sexual offences and drugs abuse Furniture
3. Purchase of photocopier and court 3. Lack of legal framework to
furniture guide the ADR process
4. Adoption of Alternative Dispute Res- 4. Lack funds to support ADR
olution thus clearing backlog programmes
OYUGIS 4 1. Improvement in awareness of court 1. Lack of funding of our sta-
procedure tion 2017/2018 financial
year
2. Lack of our own facilities
HELD
RONGO 2 1. Cases are heard on the 1st day fixed 1. Inadequate funds to held a
for hearing meeting
2. Statements given to the accused 2. Some members do not at-

people on date tend due to lack of transport
of plea
3. Uncooperative members
3. Witnesses are reimbursed transport. from district treasury to
release funds in advance for
4. Warrant of arrest reduced payment of hotel functions
5. Pre trial are held before hearing
6. Able to get JPIP funds
7. Old civil matters dismissed for want

of prosecution
8. Cases adjournment minimized
9. Good relationship created with the

stakeholders.
RUNYENJES 4 1. Has actively tackled the broad CUC 1. Delayed disbursement of
workplanstrategic issue 3 that ma- funds hence delayed un-
jorly defines the Operationalization dertaking of all slotted CUC
Framework Of The CUC activities.
2. Core expected outputs and activities 2. Lack of facilitators allow-
have been formulated and mea- ances so as to ensure better
sured against the set performance training to the participants
indicators; gauged annually through and motivation on the facili-
(PMMU), the station has managed a tators for CUC meetings
base line score of 100% against a set
target of 100% in the last financial 3. Reduced timeframe for im-
year. plementing/undertaking of
the CUC activities thus full
realization of set goals, to
have funding allocations for
all the 3 quarters factored
in the 1st quarter of each
financial year.
4. Lack of transport allowances

on need be basis for stake-
holders/participants when
attending trainings so as to
ensure full attendance.
5. Low budgetary allocation

since capping of some vote
items is constraining the full
operationalization of the
CUC framework.
HELD
SIAKAGO 7 1. Bigger truck provided by the OCS 1. Lack of adequate transport
for remandees
2. Proposal for making shelves at the
registries was done and approved 2. Our registries are squeezed
by all members. Metal shelves were and we have limited space
made.
3. There are police stations
3. We also purchased two computers which are very far away
and a printer/photocopier which are from Siakago so they take
kept in our court registry time to return stakeholders
forms
4. Identified liaison officers who are
able to fill the sexual offences data 4. Prison is around 27 kilome-
tres away and sometimes
5. PDP document sent to physical plan- we have exhausted AIE for
ner to make a follow up for title deed travelling allowance
for the court at Nairobi
5. Insufficient funds to cater
for procurement committee
allowances
SIRISIA 3 1. A fully functional solar energy sys- 1. Delays in funding for perfor-
tem installed to stand in case of mance of activities.
black outs, photocopy of statements
not interrupted. 2. Station is not delinked and
the Sub-County has one
2. Fully furnished board room with 30 District accountant who
chairs, 4 tables and curtains for the is mostly absent and not
newly renovated boardroom. committed to the Sustaining
Judiciary Transformation. He
3. Increase in number of witnesses occasions delays in commit-
attending court as a result of facili- ting funds and disbursing
tation hence increase in court clear- funds and surrender of
ance rate of cases. funds as well as returns.
SOTIK 2 1. Construction of a waiting bay was 1. Lack of funds for training
constructed and water tank pur- Chiefs and Investigating
chased and commissioned. officers.
HELD
TAMU 4 1. Ability to hold all quarterly meetings 1. Lack of adequate funding
2. Purchasing of Laptop for the station 2. Lack of conference facilities

for DCRT backup in the locality for holding
meetings
3. Trainining the investigating officers
and Chiefs 3. Lack of adequate funding
for witness reimbursement
4. Creating awareness and open inter-
action by different stakeholders 4. Lack of sign language inter-
preter
5. Visiting Achego children’s home and
donating assorted items. 5. Lack of modern customer
care bay and toilets (under
construction)
6. Poor road network connect-

ing court to the highway
7. Lack of housing and social

amenities for staff
8. Lack of resident lawyers in

Muhoroni
TAVETA 4 1. High level of customer/stakeholder
satisfaction.
2. Improved services to our stakehold-

ers.
TAWA 4 1. The accused person and the police 1. Inadequate funding
can easily acquire witness state-
ments. 2. Inconsistency in attendance
affected mostly by member
2. The police undertook the responsibil- transfers
ity of maintaining the copy machine
when need arises. 3. Lack of motivation for mem-
bers
3. Community sensitization to access
to justice 4. Lack of interest by some
stakeholders
4. Promotes people- focused delivery
to justice 5. Prosecution challenges;
one of the State Counsel
5. Reduction of case backlog through is under severe substance
ADR abuse of alcohol. Due to his
many criminal cases are yet
6. Promoting inter-agency co-operation to be concluded, and hence
affecting the criminal cases
returns.
UKWALA 6 1. Promoted cordial working relation- 1. Insufficient funds
ship
2. Delay in disbursement of
2. Solved the problems of power outag- funds
es used in typing of proceedings and
court orders. 3. Lack of facilitation – trans-
port and lunch
3. People sensitized on court procedure
and alternative dispute resolution. 4. Non commitment/laxity
among some members
4. Able to get feedback from re-
mandees/inmates
HELD
VIHIGA 6 1. Training of various stakeholders on 1. Lack of funding
Case Administration
2. Launch of Vihiga County CUC and

public engagement
3. Training of investigating officers on

Sexual Offences Act and evidence
gathering
4. Sensitization of bodaboda operators

on traffic rules, bail and bond ad-
ministration and on discrimination
towards people with disabilities.
VOI 4 1. Through the training of CUC mem- 1. Financial constraint and
bers on investigation and prosecu- conditionality hence inabili-
tion led to improved standard of ty to source for trainers
investigation and prosecution.
2. Inconsistency in members
2. Improved case hearing certainty due attendance impacting on
to prompt and timely supply of wit- follow up.
ness statements to accused persons
through the purchase of photocopier. 3. Limited finances impacting
on the capacity of the alter-
3. Enhanced efficiency in service deliv- native power source.
ery and timely submission of DCRT
and other necessary data through 4. Illiteracy impacting on the
the installation of solar power. absorption of the legal
knowledge.
4. Improved legal awareness.
5. Intitutional failure to fund
5. Improved the lives of less fortunate charitable activities limiting
via voluntary service. This was done the extent of CSR activities
by putting up of a gate and sentry
box at Tumaini Children’s Home as
the Committee CSR activity.
WAJIR 12 1. Regular supply of water within the 1. Repatriation of aliens has
court premises through the purchase been a challenge
of water tanks
2. Improved sanitation by the refur-

bishment of public toilets
3. Purchase of metal detectors has en-

sured the Security of staff and court
users guaranteed
HELD
WANG’URU 6 1. Drastic reduction in the number of 1. Lack of funding to acquire
missing land for the mobile court in
Karaba
2. Increased confidence by the public
to the court 2. Poor road network to Kara-
ba
3. Constant availability of water for
running court hygiene 3. There is no women’s prison
in Kirinyaga county
4. Witness statements produced in time
thus reducing the number of days 4. There is no children’s re-
spend in remand by the accused mand home in Kirinyaga
county
5. Constitution of a probono committee
5. Delays in payment of probo-
6. Speedy determination of cases no advocates
through Alternative Dispute Resolu-
tion 6. There are no cells for hold-
ing children and female
7. Received a donation of chairs from remandees due to lack of
the business community which have funds and space.
helped a lot in the registry
7. Court Two building belongs
to the county council and is
used at night to keep goats.
Thus, the court stinks.
WINAM 3 1. Improved infrastructure 1. Non-attendance by some of

(public toilet) the members
Renovation of the prosecutor’s office
2. Lack of funding
2. Improved registry efficiency through
3. Delay in funding
the purchase of 2 computers and a
laptop
HELD
WUNDANYI 3 1. Accused are well served with the 1. Persons with disabilities
statements on time for them to pre- cannot access the registry
pare for their defence as the concrete slab caters
for the open court. Inade-
2. People with disabilities are catered quate funds for constructing
for but still need a well constructed a ramp.
ramp.
2. The amount received caters
3. We have already received funds for for 3 court officials and 2
the 1st quarter. securities where applicable
4. Through CUC we managed to iden- excluding prosecutor. Due
tify most of the activities named to poor roads, officers will
above. be forced to use longer
routes.
5. Witnesses have now gathered cour-
age of coming to court when re- 3. Despite paying the wit-
quired or when bonded. nesses on time, the police
have continued delaying
6. Issuing notices, we managed to re- justice by not bonding the
duce backlog. witnesses on time and pro-
ducing the police files when
required.
4. Doctors not attending court

as required due to shortage
of personnel therefore caus-
ing delay in finalizing SOA
matters.
ANNEX
Activities presided over by the Judiciary leadership for the Period 2017/ 18
DATE ACTIVITY
1. 1st to 8th July 2017 Kenya Women Judges Association and Judges Colloquium - Mombasa
2. 30th June 2017 Milimani Magistrates’ Criminal Courts Open Day
3. 2nd -5th July 2017 Annual Judges Colloquium
4. 11th July 2017 Senior Counsels Luncheon
5. 13th July 2017 Launch of the State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice (SOJAR) Annual
Report
6. 26th July 2017 Independent commissions breakfast meeting
7. 3rd August 2017 Launch of EDR Bench Book – CJ’s Garden
8. 7th Aug. 2017 Meeting with Election Observers
9. 25th -29 Aug. 2017 Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association Conference-Dar-e-salaam
10. 12thSeptember 2018 Swearing in-Chair and members (CMAT)
11. 21st September 2018 Swearing in of the Tax Appeals Board (KRA)
12. 8th to 10th September Kenya Women Judges Annual Conference
2017
13. 10th October 2018 Swearing in of the Transport Licensing Appeals Board Members (TLATB)
14. 17th October 2017 Admission of Advocates
15. 18th October 2017 Meeting with Commonwealth Advocates
16. 30th October 2017 Meeting with Supreme Court Judges
17. 6th November 2017 Inauguration of the new Employment and Labour Relations Court Principal Judge at
Milimani Commercial Courts
18. 14th Nov National coordinating Committee meeting
19. 15th -17th November Court visit (Makueni and Kitui)
2017
20. 27th November 2017 Association of Law Reform Agencies of Eastern and Southern Africa
ALRAESA Conference (KLRC)
21. 5th December 2017 Swearing in-New Magistrates
22. 8th December 2017 Nakuru Law Courts visit to inspect ongoing construction of the new High Court
23. Opening of the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Conference
24. 11th December 2017 Delivery of the presidential election petition judgment
25. 15th December 2017 SOJAR Report Launch
26. 19th December 2017 Meeting with Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association Leadership
27. 2nd January 2018 Meeting with the Principal Judge of the High Court
28. 15th January 2018 Launch of National Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms
29. 19th January 2018 Swearing Ceremony of the Deputy Inspector General and Director of Criminal
Investigations.
30. 22nd January 2018 Opening of the Law Society of Kenya Colloquium.
31. 26 January 2018
th
Official opening of the Parliamentary JLAC retreat
32. 28th -31st January 2018 CJ’s visit to see progress with the court constructions in the Coast region (Mombasa,
Kwale, and Voi)
33. 2nd February 2018 Launch of the Judiciary Integrated Financial Management System ( JIFMAS)
34. 2nd February 2018 Admission of new Advocates
35. 2nd February 2018 Meeting with the Sports Tribunal
36. 7th February 2018 Swearing in of the Council Legal Education Tribunal members
37. 10th to 14th February Court visit to western (Kakamega, Siaya and Kisumu)
2018
38. 9th February 2018 Meeting with the Environmental Tribunal
39. 12th February 2018 Kakamega Law Courts visit- Laying foundation stone of the new High Court building.
40. 13th February 2018 Siaya Law Courts visit- Inspection of the Siaya Court
41. 15th February 2018 Meeting with Advocates.
42. 18 February 2018 to 2nd Cairo High Level Meeting of Chief Justices of Constitutional and Supreme Courts
th
25th February 2018

43. 19th February 2018 Swearing in of the Public Private Partnerships Petitions Committee Members
44. 20th February 2018 Chairperson forum meeting
DATE ACTIVITY
45. 23rd February 2018 Meeting with International Foundation For Electoral Systems (IFES) and Independent
Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)
46. 24th Feb-7th march Executive leadership program for courts &tribunals (Singapore)
47. 5th March 2018 to Guest Speaker – 12th Parliament Post Election Seminar for members of National
8 March 2018
th
Assembly
48. 7th March 2018 AWAK - Speaker at the 3rd Leadership & Accountability Conference 2018
49. 8th March 2018 Remarks - Launch of the Justice Needs & Satisfaction Survey Report
50. 9th March 2018 NCAJ Council meeting and launch of PLEAD programme
51. 12th March 2018 Elections of the Principal Judge
52. 23rd March 2018 Launch of Co-operative Tribunal Service Week
53. 27 -28 march 2018 Admission of new Advocates
th th
54. 28th March 2018 Meeting with Performance and Management Committee on PMMU field evaluation
report.
55. 9th April 2018 Swearing in- Insurance Appeals Tribunal.
56. 10 April 2018
th
Meeting with PAC
57. 12th April 2018 Visit to the Kadhis court, Upper Hill
58. 15th-21st April 2018 Supreme Court Retreat
59. 22nd April 2018 to 26th Election of Principal Judge & Annual Judges Conference
April 2018
60. 25th April National Centre Terrorism stakeholder Meeting at NCTC Karen
61. 25th April 2018 Induction training for newly transited tribunals to the Judiciary
62. 25th April 2018 High Court Judges Retreat

63. 26th April 2018 Invitation to the Judicial Performance Improvement Project Steering Committee
64. 26th April 2018 Meeting with JPIP Steering Committee

65. 27th April 2018 Launch of the Performance Management & Measurement Understandings Evaluation
Report, 2016/2017
66. 27th April 2018 Official Launch of PMMU Evaluation Report 2016/17
67. 4 May 2018
th
Open day, Milimani Commercial Court
68. 11th May 2018 Swearing in of the Power of Mercy Advisory Committee
69. 15th May 2018 Installation ceremony for Principal Judge
70. 15th May 2018 Installation ceremony of the Principal Judge of the High Court.
71. 16 May 2018
th
Justice and legal Affairs committee
72. 17th May 2018 Stakeholder committee round table meeting
73. 17th May 2018 Launch of Commercial Justice Sector Reform Project.
74. 22nd May 2018 Meeting with the National Assembly Public Accounts Committee Meeting
75. 26 June 2018
th
Inauguration Ceremony of Hon. Mr. Justice William Ouko, PCA
76. 6th June 2018 Official opening of the Environment and Land Court Judges Annual Conference
77. 8th June 2018 Signing of MOU with Governor KTL
78. 17 June 2018
th
Opening Ceremony at the Annual Magistrates & Kadhis Colloquium
79. 21st July - 2nd June CJ’s visit to Nyando Law Courts
80. 26th June 2018 Swearing in ceremony for the President of the Court of Appeal.
81. 27th-28th June 2018 Admission of Advocates.
82. 3 August Thursday Launch of EDR Bench Book – CJ’s Garden
rd
–
83. 8th to 10th September KWJA Conference
–Simba Lodge –
Naivasha
446
Annex 2.1 Filed civil cases by type and High Court Station, FY 2017/18

Adoption
Civil Appeal
Civil Misc.
Civil Matter
Commercial Matters
Commercial
Miscellaneous
Const Human &
Rights
Divorce
Family Appeal
Family Misc.
Income Tax Appeal
Judicial Misc.
Judicial Review
Probate Admin
All Civil cases
Bomet 1 10 37 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 33 92
Bungoma 4 40 90 10 5 0 24 0 0 1 0 1 3 6 184
Busia 0 11 82 13 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 11 0 126
Chuka 0 8 17 6 0 0 1 0 0 28 0 0 0 15 75
Eldoret 2 50 53 22 0 0 13 0 0 5 0 2 7 56 210
Embu 17 132 17 18 0 0 8 0 0 232 0 0 4 11 439
Garissa 0 16 0 2 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 2 52 91
Garsen 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Homabay 0 24 30 6 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 3 8 5 88
Kabarnet 0 8 3 7 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 18 40
Kajiado 5 12 32 17 0 0 7 1 0 5 0 5 11 31 126
Kakamega 0 7 12 10 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 9 45
Kapenguria 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 14
Kericho 1 15 23 13 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 74
Kerugoya 0 37 44 13 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 19 124
Kiambu 29 165 338 37 0 2 77 0 0 7 0 0 31 94 780
Kisii 8 73 56 58 1 0 20 2 0 1 0 0 4 11 234
Kisumu 15 100 223 35 32 0 85 0 0 3 0 5 15 127 640
Kitale 0 16 30 14 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 18 85
Kitui 1 17 10 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 130 15 184
Lodwar 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Machakos 28 166 572 36 0 0 33 0 0 3 0 7 15 72 932
Makueni 0 56 105 11 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 197
Malindi 1 55 38 60 2 10 29 5 0 12 0 7 12 29 260

Adoption
Civil Appeal
Civil Misc.
Civil Matter
Commercial Matters
Commercial
Miscellaneous
Const Human &
Rights
Divorce
Family Appeal
Family Misc.
Income Tax Appeal
Judicial Misc.
Judicial Review
Probate Admin
All Civil cases
Marsabit 0 13 12 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 46
Meru 10 132 142 75 1 0 32 0 0 42 0 1 9 27 471
Migori 1 78 328 12 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 50 19 494
Milimani Anti0corr. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Civil Div. 0 66 68 76 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 223
Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 1 0 20 688 416 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 1,144
Milimani Const. Div 0 0 0 3 0 0 454 0 0 0 0 14 66 0 537
Milimani Criminal Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Family Div. 177 0 0 9 0 0 0 14 120 281 0 0 11 1,198 1,810
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 84 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 42 485 0 686
Mombasa 11 210 309 135 9 0 331 0 17 31 0 22 108 26 1,209
Muranga 5 66 159 15 0 0 47 0 3 9 0 3 10 26 343
Naivasha 2 61 80 13 0 0 6 0 2 2 0 0 5 13 184
Nakuru 14 35 120 26 2 0 14 1 1 14 0 0 19 140 386
Nanyuki 3 10 8 10 0 0 9 1 0 1 0 1 8 9 60
Narok 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 21
Nyamira 0 14 7 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 28
Nyandarua 4 42 47 16 0 0 11 0 0 7 0 0 8 32 167
Nyeri 6 57 86 25 0 0 14 0 1 4 0 0 3 10 206
Siaya 0 20 9 8 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 50
Voi 0 15 1 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 33
All High Courts 345 1,839 3,193 949 740 430 1,401 29 144 712 19 118 1,065 2,167 13,151
447
448
Annex 2. 2 Resolved civil cases by type and High Court station, FY 2017/18 All civil Cases
Adoption
Civil Appeal
Civil Misc
Civil Matter
Commercial Matters
Commercial Misc.
Const Human & Rights
Divorce
Family Appeal
Family Misc
Income Tax Appeal
Judicial Misc
Judicial Review
Probate Admin
Court Name
Bomet 1 2 5 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 63 81
Bungoma 0 15 2 9 1 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 1 75 111
Busia 0 28 15 9 0 0 5 1 0 2 0 0 2 40 102
Chuka 0 3 6 0 0 0 2 1 0 13 0 0 1 51 77
Eldoret 0 122 104 54 1 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 4 94 389
Embu 1 84 53 48 0 0 7 0 0 45 0 1 3 29 271
Garissa 0 16 3 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 37 71
Garsen 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6
Homabay 0 36 14 5 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 1 6 205 277
Kabarnet 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 9
Kajiado 6 4 21 8 0 0 8 0 1 1 0 0 7 18 74
Kakamega 1 20 5 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 239 279
Kapenguria 0 7 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 18 38
Kericho 19 136 12 112 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 67 353
Kerugoya 0 26 6 19 0 0 10 1 2 3 0 0 11 29 107
Kiambu 9 91 120 14 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 21 34 309
Kisii 18 249 111 60 1 0 65 28 0 1 0 1 19 657 1,210
Kisumu 18 224 558 105 12 0 30 0 0 1 0 1 13 776 1,738
Kitale 0 3 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 64 77
Kitui 0 106 15 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 137
Lodwar 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
Machakos 6 115 348 29 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 2 207 715
Makueni 1 42 88 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 136 276
All civil Cases
Adoption
Civil Appeal
Civil Misc
Civil Matter
Commercial Matters
Commercial Misc.
Const Human & Rights
Divorce
Family Appeal
Family Misc
Income Tax Appeal
Judicial Misc
Judicial Review
Probate Admin
Court Name
Malindi 1 48 24 48 3 0 27 5 0 6 0 6 12 125 305
Marsabit 0 16 7 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 36
Meru 5 307 176 68 1 0 51 2 0 121 0 3 14 873 1,621
Migori 0 69 313 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 214 608
Milimani Anti0corr. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Civil Div. 0 1,172 287 1,164 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2,635
Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 1 0 23 816 371 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 1,228
Milimani Const. Div. 0 0 0 3 0 0 287 0 0 0 0 29 52 0 371
Milimani Family Div. 227 0 0 6 2 0 3 359 232 533 0 0 11 9,530 10,903
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 8 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 34 371 0 496
Mombasa 8 240 162 771 521 1 74 38 3 14 0 172 221 346 2,571
Muranga 3 94 11 7 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 1 3 326 453
Naivasha 0 12 38 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 37 98
Nakuru 24 50 86 73 0 0 72 1 1 3 0 1 26 582 919
Nanyuki 2 6 4 9 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 6 10 45
Narok 0 7 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13
Nyamira 0 6 1 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 6 24
Nyandarua 0 4 5 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 44 72
Nyeri 7 49 66 20 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 4 142 296
Siaya 0 8 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 34
Voi 0 20 2 7 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 61
All High Courts 357 3,439 2,686 2,757 1,364 372 832 444 240 755 16 257 859 15,125 29,503
449
450
Annex 2.3 Filed and resolved criminal cases by type and High Court Station, FY 2017/18
High Court Station Filed cases Resolved cases
Murder
Criminal
Application
Criminal
Appeal
Criminal
Revision
all CR cases
Murder
Criminal
Application
Criminal
Appeal
Criminal
Revision

All CR
cases
Bomet 28 29 25 5 87 15 3 14 6 38
Bungoma 33 25 17 33 108 63 14 183 50 310
Busia 43 16 1 36 96 19 20 83 169 291
Chuka 21 25 7 25 78 7 15 8 109 139
Eldoret 147 26 23 198 394 15 23 24 242 304
Embu 36 25 25 144 230 20 3 51 4 78
Garissa 21 44 86 86 237 13 14 108 42 177
Garsen 6 5 2 0 13 2 2 14 0 18
Homabay 65 40 36 81 222 20 48 58 80 206
Kabarnet 35 58 59 70 222 21 44 52 89 206
Kajiado 26 28 19 30 103 23 18 22 46 109
Kakamega 88 69 60 128 345 29 51 77 1 158
Kapenguria 9 11 13 24 57 21 12 28 32 93
Kericho 44 35 16 176 271 12 20 27 73 132
Kerugoya 19 9 6 99 133 5 17 64 19 105
Kiambu 80 214 102 389 785 28 76 96 330 530
Kisii 72 151 86 167 476 37 55 51 296 439
Kisumu 73 98 102 76 349 108 35 79 11 233
Kitale 66 36 206 702 1,010 9 17 176 153 355
Kitui 63 61 37 23 184 5 11 28 1 45
Lodwar 12 0 15 0 27 2 0 11 0 13
Machakos 71 131 108 239 549 17 25 88 5 135
Makueni 43 34 29 131 237 1 8 32 154 195
Malindi 18 35 13 66 132 12 49 43 3 107
Marsabit 12 8 14 20 54 9 2 15 21 47
Meru 173 256 177 540 1,146 82 77 133 356 648
Migori 29 57 29 63 178 41 25 30 48 144
High Court Station Filed cases Resolved cases
Murder
Criminal
Application
Criminal
Appeal
Criminal
Revision
all CR cases
Murder
Criminal
Application
Criminal
Appeal
Criminal
Revision

All CR
cases
Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 0 32 1 0 33 5 28 3 0 36

Milimani Civil Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Const. Div 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Criminal Div. 114 521 190 564 1,389 92 405 128 234 859
Milimani Family Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mombasa 78 163 148 378 767 22 40 79 155 296
Muranga 98 40 94 53 285 13 14 51 114 192
Naivasha 27 24 17 33 101 15 9 46 13 83
Nakuru 65 99 61 7 232 123 43 152 6 324
Nanyuki 23 66 82 93 264 20 33 81 82 216
Narok 19 27 3 4 53 18 5 32 6 61
Nyamira 14 21 50 8 93 6 41 18 16 81
Nyandarua 43 26 99 93 261 5 1 91 50 147
Nyeri 13 57 36 113 219 17 28 59 107 211
Siaya 78 38 106 125 347 13 53 113 42 221
Voi 12 73 35 12 132 10 73 92 22 197
All High Courts 1,917 2,713 2,235 5,034 11,899 995 1,457 2,540 3,187 8,179
451
452
Annex 2.4 Pending civil cases by type and High Court station, 30th June 2018.
Adoption
Civil Appeal
Civil Application
Civil Matter
Commercial Matters
Commercial Misc.
Constitutional &
Divorce
Family Appeal
Family Misc.
Income tax Appeal
Jr Miscellaneous
Judicial Review
Probate Admin
Human right petition

All pending civil

Bomet 0 21 47 11 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 197 285
Bungoma 5 582 522 196 4 0 27 0 1 2 0 4 6 1,174 2,523
Busia 0 52 398 62 1 0 10 3 5 2 0 0 48 1,219 1,800
Chuka 0 12 27 24 0 0 1 1 2 44 0 0 171 347 629
Eldoret 5 616 611 213 1 0 69 30 1 5 0 5 51 1,383 2,990
Embu 17 229 219 58 0 0 36 5 0 213 0 1 2 1,736 2,516
Garissa 0 4 38 106 0 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 1 76 251
Garsen 0 33 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 29 75
Homabay 1 6 14 3 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 2 18 660 712
Kabarnet 0 6 3 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 35
Kajiado 1 12 19 28 11 0 8 1 1 4 0 5 17 23 130
Kakamega 1 247 320 266 0 7 32 11 2 3 0 1 162 2,936 3,988
Kapenguria 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 11
Kericho 10 78 93 90 119 0 24 0 0 0 0 13 17 1,279 1,723
Kerugoya 3 107 100 103 0 0 5 2 2 35 0 0 11 1,908 2,276
Kiambu 24 94 228 35 2 2 70 0 0 7 1 0 19 67 549
Kisii 7 448 326 194 7 0 32 12 1 0 0 11 19 78 1,135
Kisumu 13 34 171 410 31 0 101 1 0 2 0 17 66 506 1,352
Kitale 10 241 157 26 0 0 27 2 0 3 0 0 24 504 994
Kitui 2 72 10 6 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 129 16 244
Lodwar 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6
Machakos 62 1,072 678 186 2 2 51 3 0 0 0 6 109 955 3,126
Makueni 1 5 7 4 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 45
Malindi 2 83 166 110 2 11 46 27 0 7 1 1 14 288 758
Marsabit 0 5 7 1 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 31
Adoption
Civil Appeal
Civil Application
Civil Matter
Commercial Matters
Commercial Misc.
Constitutional &
Divorce
Family Appeal
Family Misc.
Income tax Appeal
Jr Miscellaneous
Judicial Review
Probate Admin
Human right petition

All pending civil

Meru 9 438 396 1,288 1 0 14 18 1 58 0 17 522 189 2,951
Migori 1 90 66 9 0 31 1 0 0 2 0 1 50 402 653
Milimani Anti-corr. Div. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Civil Div. 1,990 1,671 2,803 0 6,464
Milimani C. & Tax Div. 0 0 30 3 3,783 1,854 7 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 5,705
Milimani Const. Div 0 0 0 10 0 0 894 0 0 0 0 15 111 0 1,030
Milimani Family Div. 353 455 0 49 116 271 5,868 7,112
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 91 59 0 18 0 0 0 0 32 974 0 1,174
Mombasa 26 2,463 2,557 927 136 12 510 215 91 125 16 769 195 1,497 9,539
Muranga 18 533 404 91 2 0 81 5 5 39 0 7 28 1,202 2,415
Naivasha 4 218 99 59 8 0 19 1 4 3 0 0 23 182 620
Nakuru 40 974 1,405 870 4 0 20 14 8 50 2 0 227 3,859 7,473
Nanyuki 2 10 11 9 0 0 8 1 3 2 1 1 4 42 94
Narok 0 12 19 14 5 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 16 72
Nyamira 1 141 6 2 11 0 6 2 22 25 0 0 3 183 402
Nyandarua 4 45 38 12 2 0 11 0 0 8 0 0 1 2 123
Nyeri 27 226 646 282 0 1 44 24 1 10 0 1 39 1,292 2,593
Siaya 1 27 12 13 1 0 9 1 0 2 1 0 3 141 211
Voi 0 37 4 10 57 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 4 58 183
All High Courts 650 11,265 11,529 9,096 4,257 1,921 2,257 431 267 929 50 913 3,074 30,359 76,998
* Family and Civil divisions of Milimani High Court and Machakos High court carried out joint case audit with PMD to ascertain the correct status of pending cases.
453
Annex 2.5 Pending criminal cases by type and High Court station, 30th June 2018.
High Court Station
Application
All cases
Revision
Criminal
Criminal
Criminal
Murder
Appeal
Bomet 31 30 67 0 128
Bungoma 126 66 232 28 452
Busia 84 17 53 0 154
Chuka 20 14 0 0 34
Eldoret 580 180 856 0 1,616
Embu 140 47 126 199 512
Garissa 60 110 116 47 333
Garsen 10 4 20 18 52
Homabay 98 0 0 42 140
Kabarnet 89 45 29 0 163
Kajiado 39 19 0 34 92
Kakamega 289 40 333 134 796
Kapenguria 21 8 0 0 29
Kericho 124 26 78 109 337
Kerugoya 30 0 28 107 165
Kiambu 99 140 84 59 382
Kisii 183 208 91 13 495
Kisumu 91 88 106 116 401
Kitale 124 51 244 717 1,136
Kitui 99 56 91 22 268
Lodwar 13 3 8 0 24
Machakos 122 92 255 69 538
Makueni 44 26 0 0 70
Malindi 37 5 0 69 111
Marsabit 13 9 0 1 23
Meru 446 290 327 192 1,255
Migori 42 70 10 34 156
Milimani Anti0corr. Div. 0 14 30 0 44
Milimani Civil Div. 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani C. & Tax Di. 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Const. DiV 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Criminal Div. 446 1,240 1,054 954 3,694
Milimani Family Div. 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani Jud. Rev. Div. 0 0 0 0 0
Mombasa 310 275 1,006 370 1,961
Muranga 211 77 604 0 892
Naivasha 99 43 120 48 310
Nakuru 333 303 812 27 1,475
Nanyuki 52 110 139 224 525
Narok 17 47 0 0 64
Nyamira 75 9 41 0 125
Nyandarua 48 25 12 46 131
Nyeri 98 140 200 24 462
Siaya 131 46 151 241 569
Voi 14 66 29 106 215
All Courts 4,888 4,039 7,352 4,050 20,329
Annex 2.6 Filed, Resolved and Pending Cases in Magistrate Court, FY 2017/18
MC Station Filed Cases Resolved Cases Pending Cases
as at 30th June 2018
Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All Criminal Civil All
Baricho 2,279 377 2,656 2,090 277 2,367 1,128 918 2,046
Bomet 2,306 152 2,458 2,203 145 2,348 512 545 1,057
Bondo 1,165 378 1,543 1,163 566 1,729 207 314 521
Bungoma 3,831 895 4,726 4,334 1,338 5,672 981 1,127 2,108
Busia 3,410 846 4,256 2,751 344 3,095 3,785 860 4,645
Butali 1,082 393 1,475 875 312 1,187 699 700 1,399
Butere 1,026 547 1,573 895 443 1,338 342 758 1,100
Chuka 1,681 422 2,103 1,471 230 1,701 1,133 1,107 2,240
Eldama Ravine 2,018 177 2,195 2,265 241 2,506 190 356 546
Eldoret 8,655 3,068 11,723 6,204 2,452 8,656 7,559 3,409 10,968
Embu 2,134 445 2,579 1,570 1,125 2,695 1,567 580 2,147
Engineer 1,400 11 1,411 1,259 142 1,401 623 311 934
Garissa 1,880 54 1,934 1,462 24 1,486 1,308 193 1,501
Garsen 423 6 429 347 19 366 401 19 420
Gatundu 1,683 671 2,354 1,396 687 2,083 849 1,003 1,852
Gichugu 1,297 238 1,535 1,255 282 1,537 337 474 811
Githongo 1,580 257 1,837 1,313 107 1,420 398 190 588
Githunguri 1,693 209 1,902 1,681 496 2,177 525 417 942
Hamisi 1,498 99 1,597 1,472 121 1,593 923 21 944
Hola 294 68 362 228 51 279 222 39 261
Homa bay 1,566 723 2,289 1,234 259 1,493 867 783 1,650
Isiolo 1,284 18 1,302 846 87 933 918 193 1,111
Iten 1,339 36 1,375 2,008 147 2,155 481 31 512
JKIA 324 0 324 246 0 246 106 0 106
Kabarnet 1,215 96 1,311 1,159 101 1,260 142 35 177
Kajiado 2,770 637 3,407 2,516 471 2,987 1,627 2,457 4,084
Kakamega 4,411 1,049 5,460 3,036 481 3,517 4,372 2,157 6,529
Kakuma 405 8 413 289 4 293 210 15 225
Kaloleni 329 329 658 232 290 522 197 428 625
Kandara 2,123 266 2,389 1,661 257 1,918 1,074 604 1,678
Kangema 1,145 257 1,402 1,007 102 1,109 345 264 609
Kangundo 2,009 331 2,340 1,792 304 2,096 905 252 1,157
Kapenguria 2,029 51 2,080 1,601 67 1,668 1,249 17 1,266
Kapsabet 4,227 590 4,817 3,524 250 3,774 1,928 1,643 3,571
Karatina 884 580 1,464 737 394 1,131 702 1,268 1,970
Kehancha 1,316 35 1,351 1,093 22 1,115 244 13 257
Kericho 4,808 658 5,466 4,453 706 5,159 2,041 1,850 3,891
Keroka 1,548 219 1,767 1,420 569 1,989 629 24 653
Kerugoya 1,119 589 1,708 870 498 1,368 526 1,175 1,701
Kiambu 1,453 320 1,773 1,140 508 1,648 1,105 1,169 2,274
Kibera 6,088 1 6,089 4,990 2 4,992 12,452 0 12,452
Kigumo 2,528 245 2,773 2,347 400 2,747 2,520 201 2,721
Kikuyu 2,191 899 3,090 1,730 555 2,285 1,756 1,706 3,462
Kilgoris 1,074 21 1,095 1,202 99 1,301 949 288 1,237
Kilifi 1,030 541 1,571 930 627 1,557 1,068 169 1,237
Kilungu 1,770 372 2,142 1,620 410 2,030 480 302 782
Kimilili 2,175 303 2,478 1,899 188 2,087 1,127 430 1,557
Kisii 3,508 2,452 5,960 3,269 1,506 4,775 1,893 3,407 5,300
Kisumu 2,591 2,420 5,011 1,969 1,260 3,229 5,023 4,132 9,155
Kitale 5,765 1,025 6,790 4,202 908 5,110 3,860 1,749 5,609
Kithimani 1,927 689 2,616 1,693 275 1,968 836 544 1,380
Kitui 2,011 1,051 3,062 1,361 506 1,867 2,583 4,543 7,126
Kwale 1,945 646 2,591 1,592 504 2,096 1,396 1,430 2,826
Kyuso 423 55 478 359 131 490 90 163 253
Lamu 488 49 537 326 49 375 403 0 403
Limuru 1,854 834 2,688 1,534 527 2,061 1,065 1,393 2,458
Lodwar 1,180 66 1,246 790 39 829 765 51 816
Loitoktok 723 79 802 644 25 669 149 54 203
Machakos 2,807 1,480 4,287 2,692 2,083 4,775 1,838 2,903 4,741
Makadara 18,265 4 18,269 18,707 6 18,713 8,828 0 8,828
Makindu 2,211 331 2,542 1,713 747 2,460 3,468 1,471 4,939
Makueni 698 179 877 739 253 992 495 424 919
Malindi 1,677 175 1,852 1,630 651 2,281 2,011 503 2,514
Mandera 808 19 827 712 19 731 89 10 99
Maralal 1,084 9 1,093 539 25 564 996 24 1,020
Mariakani 2,049 538 2,587 1,840 540 2,380 627 1,040 1,667
Marimanti 831 65 896 743 46 789 373 89 462
Marsabit 787 54 841 627 52 679 478 5 483
Maseno 1,106 154 1,260 988 339 1,327 964 752 1,716
Maua 4,265 132 4,397 3,899 1,643 5,542 2,962 693 3,655
Mavoko 2,417 1,904 4,321 2,123 1,446 3,569 1,251 3,262 4,513
Mbita 925 21 946 688 40 728 649 103 752
Meru 3,267 1,009 4,276 3,297 2,533 5,830 1,265 4,747 6,012
Migori 873 996 1,869 692 503 1,195 947 2,818 3,765
Mil. Anti-corruption 104 0 104 52 0 52 148 0 148
Mil. Childrens 429 1,396 1,825 1,552 4,046 5,598 2,283 6,841 9,124
Mil. Commercial 0 10,924 0 6,608 6,608 0 47,546 47,546
Mil. Magistrate 20,979 0 20,979 17,967 0 17,967 19,141 0 19,141
Molo 3,306 366 3,672 2,633 257 2,890 2,327 1,045 3,372
Mombasa 6,649 8,071 14,720 4,453 7,057 11,510 17,736 27,062 44,798
Moyale 604 48 652 550 29 579 248 51 299
Mpeketoni 327 21 348 129 22 151 244 3 247
Mukurwe-ini 465 412 877 510 129 639 68 323 391
Mumias 2,299 147 2,446 1,935 334 2,269 908 61 969
Murang'a 2,481 1,436 3,917 2,097 506 2,603 1,368 4,199 5,567
Mutomo 666 50 716 516 69 585 452 11 463
Mwingi 986 171 1,157 705 353 1,058 878 597 1,475
Nairobi City 1,648 9,032 10,680 1,726 8,904 705 130 835
Naivasha 4,975 1,386 6,361 4,311 1,239 5,550 4,006 3,586 7,592
Nakuru 3,919 2,264 6,183 3,149 3,180 6,329 8,287 19,658 27,945
Nanyuki 2,714 283 2,997 2,389 275 2,664 1,527 1,962 3,489
Narok 2,903 495 3,398 2,869 265 3,134 879 1,447 2,326
Ndhiwa 421 227 648 296 129 425 327 350 677
Ngong' 1,843 95 1,938 1,179 81 1,260 1,046 15 1,061
Nkubu 1,318 272 1,590 1,214 540 1,754 806 327 1,133
Nyahururu 1,957 1,018 2,975 1,880 507 2,387 2,225 2,251 4,476
Nyamira 1,798 210 2,008 1,237 123 1,360 1,001 788 1,789
Nyando 1,473 518 1,991 1,258 268 1,526 1,386 2,461 3,847
Nyeri 1,692 1,406 3,098 1,449 886 2,335 903 2,211 3,114
Ogembo 2,866 335 3,201 3,179 537 3,716 1,375 1,346 2,721
Othaya 1,255 88 1,343 1,119 136 1,255 393 19 412
Oyugis 1,651 440 2,091 1,488 464 1,952 677 103 780
Rongo 548 706 1,254 571 282 853 848 790 1,638
Runyenjes 1,012 124 1,136 801 142 943 419 37 456
Shanzu 4,421 19 4,440 3,860 12 3,872 2,793 0 2,793
Siakago 1,230 172 1,402 895 436 1,331 1,191 596 1,787
Siaya 1,278 493 1,771 1,215 508 1,723 638 655 1,293
Sirisia 1,509 67 1,576 1,284 50 1,334 474 50 524
Sotik 2,090 333 2,423 2,076 481 2,557 289 678 967
Tamu 654 103 757 558 112 670 229 87 316
Taveta 686 37 723 597 10 607 271 149 420
Tawa 424 91 515 275 190 465 311 75 386
Thika 10,019 3,457 13,476 6,890 2,221 9,111 2,251 9,315 11,566
Tigania 1,993 36 2,029 2,376 95 2,471 1,882 710 2,592
Tononoka 369 311 680 316 241 557 584 978 1,562
Ukwala 771 133 904 718 276 994 389 21 410
Vihiga 2,117 475 2,592 1,451 259 1,710 857 1,170 2,027
Voi 2,613 462 3,075 2,529 303 2,832 504 989 1,493
Wajir 952 25 977 752 25 777 453 30 483
Wang'uru 1,871 545 2,416 1,721 523 2,244 584 413 997
Webuye 1,805 293 2,098 1,561 222 1,783 994 612 1,606
Winam 1,456 644 2,100 1,248 588 1,836 1,408 690 2,098
Wundanyi 879 120 999 756 110 866 238 104 342
All Courts 271,405 84,680 356,085 235,476 77,886 313,362 197,964 209,667 407,631
Annex 2.7 Filed criminal cases by type and Magistrate Court Station, FY 2017/18
MC Station Criminal Sexual Inquest Children Traffic All Criminal
Cases Offences Criminal Cases
Baricho 1,726 114 1 5 433 2,279
Bomet 1,629 84 1 2 590 2,306
Bondo 987 84 0 2 92 1,165
Bungoma 1,899 232 5 9 1,686 3,831
Busia 2,686 245 1 29 449 3,410
Butali 768 103 0 8 203 1,082
Butere 718 106 0 94 108 1,026
Chuka 1,308 41 1 9 322 1,681
Eldama Ravine 1,539 121 1 13 344 2,018
Eldoret 5,499 677 2 11 2,466 8,655
Embu 1,327 119 1 83 604 2,134
Engineer 1,123 45 0 6 226 1,400
Garissa 1,150 90 0 3 637 1,880
Garsen 287 63 0 4 69 423
Gatundu 1,485 98 0 2 98 1,683
Gichugu 1,223 55 4 8 7 1,297
Githongo 1,483 71 0 5 21 1,580
Githunguri 1,494 52 1 0 146 1,693
Hamisi 1,259 170 0 1 68 1,498
Hola 224 48 0 9 13 294
Homa bay 1,099 58 7 2 400 1,566
Isiolo 1,102 61 5 1 115 1,284
Iten 983 114 2 8 232 1,339
JKIA 226 0 0 0 98 324
Kabarnet 1,016 93 1 3 102 1,215
Kajiado 1,565 79 0 14 1,112 2,770
Kakamega 3,556 243 5 103 504 4,411
Kakuma 340 58 0 0 7 405
Kaloleni 182 89 0 1 57 329
Kandara 1,768 176 0 23 156 2,123
Kangema 859 79 1 2 204 1,145
Kangundo 1,522 131 2 18 336 2,009
Kapenguria 1,700 143 2 78 106 2,029
Kapsabet 3,823 305 1 19 79 4,227
Karatina 616 70 4 3 191 884
Kehancha 1,082 97 0 10 127 1,316
Kericho 3,466 273 6 22 1,041 4,808
Keroka 1,174 119 1 4 250 1,548
Kerugoya 723 58 10 1 327 1,119
Kiambu 1,180 94 0 5 174 1,453
Kibera 2,631 173 3 6 3,275 6,088
Kigumo 1,860 131 0 6 531 2,528
Kikuyu 1,521 101 5 26 538 2,191
Kilgoris 853 91 0 40 90 1,074
Kilifi 520 259 0 7 244 1,030
Kilungu 857 133 3 19 758 1,770
Kimilili 1,560 257 4 5 349 2,175
Kisii 2,540 223 7 0 738 3,508
Kisumu 1,301 82 9 21 1,178 2,591
Kitale 4,461 490 1 27 786 5,765
Kithimani 1,480 94 0 12 341 1,927
Kitui 1,635 235 0 15 126 2,011
Kwale 1,163 337 4 13 428 1,945
Kyuso 359 23 3 5 33 423
Lamu 414 61 2 0 11 488
Limuru 1,009 67 7 7 764 1,854
Lodwar 917 207 1 1 54 1,180
Loitoktok 587 48 2 1 85 723
Machakos 1,660 128 1 38 980 2,807
Makadara 10,081 381 4 2 7,797 18,265
Makindu 1,213 154 1 6 837 2,211
Makueni 479 47 1 4 167 698
Malindi 1,103 173 6 2 393 1,677
Mandera 540 46 0 0 222 808
Maralal 960 48 1 8 67 1,084
Mariakani 945 152 2 5 945 2,049
Marimanti 702 72 0 17 40 831
Marsabit 638 59 0 0 90 787
Maseno 864 116 3 0 123 1,106
Maua 3,821 187 3 12 242 4,265
Mavoko 630 47 0 2 1,738 2,417
Mbita 702 71 0 0 152 925
Meru 2,363 103 4 43 754 3,267
Migori 662 100 0 11 100 873
Milimani Anti 104 0 0 0 0 104
Milimani Childrens 27 16 0 386 0 429
Milimani Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani CM 2,139 42 16 2 18,780 20,979
Molo 2,016 230 0 15 1,045 3,306
Mombasa 2,672 142 8 0 3,827 6,649
Moyale 531 26 1 0 46 604
Mpeketoni 289 31 0 0 7 327
Mukurwe-ini 292 27 1 2 143 465
Mumias 1,708 92 3 3 493 2,299
Murang'a 1,714 27 3 22 715 2,481
Mutomo 551 76 0 1 38 666
Mwingi 641 60 0 0 285 986
Nairobi City 1,636 4 0 0 8 1,648
Naivasha 1,623 163 6 232 2,951 4,975
Nakuru 2,621 337 1 199 761 3,919
Nanyuki 1,975 151 5 56 527 2,714
Narok 1,596 179 2 30 1,096 2,903
Ndhiwa 296 57 0 0 68 421
Ngong' 912 87 0 10 834 1,843
Nkubu 1,090 94 0 0 134 1,318
Nyahururu 1,450 183 15 40 269 1,957
Nyamira 1,458 174 4 3 159 1,798
Nyando 882 92 1 18 480 1,473
Nyeri 1,294 88 8 88 214 1,692
Ogembo 2,494 246 0 1 125 2,866
Othaya 1,000 50 3 10 192 1,255
Oyugis 1,028 102 1 19 501 1,651
Rongo 424 82 1 0 41 548
Runyenjes 812 46 0 3 151 1,012
Shanzu 2,173 223 2 7 2,016 4,421
Siakago 1,033 100 4 7 86 1,230
Siaya 1,080 115 0 2 81 1,278
Sirisia 1,223 117 4 23 142 1,509
Sotik 1,863 73 3 0 151 2,090
Tamu 507 58 2 10 77 654
Taveta 563 57 2 3 61 686
Tawa 304 60 0 0 60 424
Thika 8,423 89 1 39 1,467 10,019
Tigania 1,836 32 0 8 117 1,993
Tononoka 325 17 0 27 0 369
Ukwala 624 78 1 0 68 771
Vihiga 1,464 121 6 33 493 2,117
Voi 1,192 55 5 8 1,353 2,613
Wajir 713 88 0 1 150 952
Wang'uru 1,316 96 2 49 408 1,871
Webuye 871 108 4 38 784 1,805
Winam 1,115 109 1 0 231 1,456
Wundanyi 716 75 0 5 83 879
All Courts 173,443 14,429 258 2,381 80,894 271,405
Annex 2.8 Resolved criminal cases by type and Magistrate Court station, FY 2017/18
Criminal Sexual Children
MC Station Inquest Traffic All Criminal
Cases Offences Criminal
Baricho 1,602 56 1 3 428 2,090
Bomet 1,564 78 5 2 554 2,203
Bondo 983 95 2 4 79 1,163
Bungoma 2,143 209 16 14 1,952 4,334
Busia 2,149 147 12 9 434 2,751
Butali 592 80 1 20 182 875
Butere 615 101 1 71 107 895
Chuka 1,099 40 2 7 323 1,471
Eldama Ravine 1,466 76 0 123 600 2,265
Eldoret 4,014 220 11 8 1,951 6,204
Embu 936 76 3 58 497 1,570
Engineer 1,043 48 1 11 156 1,259
Garissa 740 77 2 1 642 1,462
Garsen 229 50 0 2 66 347
Gatundu 1,199 92 0 0 105 1,396
Gichugu 1,191 48 2 7 7 1,255
Githongo 1,277 15 0 2 19 1,313
Githunguri 1,479 57 1 0 144 1,681
Hamisi 1,247 163 3 1 58 1,472
Hola 181 32 0 8 7 228
Homa bay 812 68 11 1 342 1,234
Isiolo 722 29 0 0 95 846
Iten 1,197 139 6 8 658 2,008
JKIA 159 1 1 0 85 246
Kabarnet 957 85 1 4 112 1,159
Kajiado 1,339 95 1 14 1,067 2,516
Kakamega 2,453 163 4 31 385 3,036
Kakuma 223 60 0 0 6 289
Kaloleni 152 28 0 0 52 232
Kandara 1,330 167 0 13 151 1,661
Kangema 733 63 2 1 208 1,007
Kangundo 1,367 88 3 13 321 1,792
Kapenguria 1,378 83 5 34 101 1,601
Kapsabet 3,297 134 2 4 87 3,524
Karatina 486 65 7 0 179 737
Kehancha 899 73 0 4 117 1,093
Kericho 3,131 265 12 9 1,036 4,453
Keroka 1,099 98 1 3 219 1,420
Kerugoya 564 53 4 0 249 870
Kiambu 884 74 6 5 171 1,140
Kibera 2,091 93 4 0 2,802 4,990
Kigumo 1,614 153 12 4 564 2,347
Kikuyu 1,120 71 2 15 522 1,730
Kilgoris 891 92 3 37 179 1,202
Kilifi 431 225 9 6 259 930
Kilungu 799 121 4 9 687 1,620
Kimilili 1,271 285 19 4 320 1,899
Kisii 2,335 218 4 0 712 3,269
Kisumu 849 60 5 17 1,038 1,969
Kitale 3,025 301 0 19 857 4,202
Kithimani 1,303 71 5 4 310 1,693
Kitui 1,113 126 0 0 122 1,361
Kwale 911 277 7 3 394 1,592
Kyuso 285 39 1 3 31 359
Lamu 272 40 3 0 11 326
Limuru 741 33 2 20 738 1,534
Lodwar 644 102 1 2 41 790
Loitoktok 511 47 0 0 86 644
Machakos 1,536 139 7 30 980 2,692
Makadara 10,942 481 21 5 7,258 18,707
Makindu 915 49 4 5 740 1,713
Makueni 497 63 3 6 170 739
Malindi 991 127 19 1 492 1,630
Mandera 502 16 0 0 194 712
Maralal 495 31 0 5 8 539
Mariakani 800 101 15 2 922 1,840
Marimanti 645 44 0 13 41 743
Marsabit 500 56 0 0 71 627
Maseno 782 96 0 0 110 988
Maua 3,514 169 20 18 178 3,899
Mavoko 544 15 1 0 1,563 2,123
Mbita 521 46 1 0 120 688
Meru 2,317 150 11 36 783 3,297
Migori 544 62 1 2 83 692
Milimani Children’s 1,313 10 0 229 0 1,552
Milimani Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milimani CM 2,295 36 8 1 15,627 17,967
Molo 1,593 104 1 28 907 2,633
Mombasa 1,736 124 27 0 2,566 4,453
Moyale 487 21 1 1 40 550
Mpeketoni 117 9 1 0 2 129
Mukurwe-ini 339 22 2 2 145 510
Mumias 1,425 72 3 2 433 1,935
Murang'a 1,421 25 3 2 646 2,097
Mutomo 438 43 0 0 35 516
Mwingi 425 42 0 0 238 705
Nairobi City 1,713 2 1 0 10 1,726
Naivasha 1,287 97 13 210 2,704 4,311
Nakuru 1,913 185 14 74 963 3,149
Nanyuki 1,755 92 8 52 482 2,389
Narok 1,293 116 6 23 1,431 2,869
Ndhiwa 211 22 0 0 63 296
Ngong' 347 6 0 12 814 1,179
Nkubu 1,017 97 0 0 100 1,214
Nyahururu 1,358 242 8 12 260 1,880
Nyamira 1,026 56 0 3 152 1,237
Nyando 756 76 5 9 412 1,258
Nyeri 1,070 79 29 54 217 1,449
Ogembo 2,736 231 47 2 163 3,179
Othaya 896 34 4 2 183 1,119
Oyugis 872 122 7 5 482 1,488
Rongo 410 114 0 5 42 571
Runyenjes 630 24 0 0 147 801
Shanzu 1,935 156 5 6 1,758 3,860
Siakago 749 68 5 4 69 895
Siaya 1,040 100 0 1 74 1,215
Sirisia 1,059 65 3 18 139 1,284
Sotik 1,829 84 10 0 153 2,076
Tamu 433 41 1 7 76 558
Taveta 492 40 2 2 61 597
Tawa 194 26 0 0 55 275
Thika 5,570 132 6 58 1,124 6,890
Tigania 2,205 41 7 7 116 2,376
Tononoka 292 10 0 14 0 316
Ukwala 587 54 4 0 73 718
Vihiga 1,018 49 2 8 374 1,451
Voi 1,026 39 3 5 1,456 2,529
Wajir 551 56 0 0 145 752
Wang'uru 1,247 51 13 16 394 1,721
Webuye 685 130 28 15 703 1,561
Winam 931 85 0 0 232 1,248
Wundanyi 609 57 1 5 84 756
All Courts 148,565 10,977 591 1,655 73,688 235,476
Annex 2.9 Filed civil cases by type and Magistrate Court station
MC Station Civil Probate and Divorce and Workman Children All Civil
Cases Admin Separation Compensation Civil Cases
Baricho 171 164 0 0 42 377
Bomet 107 1 9 0 35 152
Bondo 158 217 2 0 1 378
Bungoma 692 140 6 52 5 895
Busia 353 479 2 5 7 846
Butali 100 49 2 234 8 393
Butere 266 171 5 2 103 547
Chuka 251 143 6 0 22 422
Eldama Ravine 120 50 0 3 4 177
Eldoret 2,592 356 18 15 87 3,068
Embu 249 140 30 0 26 445
Engineer 7 0 0 0 4 11
Garissa 29 0 0 1 24 54
Garsen 3 0 0 1 2 6
Gatundu 288 324 6 45 8 671
Gichugu 56 154 9 1 18 238
Githongo 190 41 8 2 16 257
Githunguri 84 110 3 10 2 209
Hamisi 17 51 1 10 20 99
Hola 61 2 1 0 4 68
Homa bay 215 464 10 0 34 723
Isiolo 13 5 0 0 0 18
Iten 27 6 0 2 1 36
JKIA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kabarnet 79 7 0 2 8 96
Kajiado 251 90 4 282 10 637
Kakamega 298 682 16 5 48 1,049
Kakuma 4 0 4 0 0 8
Kaloleni 175 29 0 124 1 329
Kandara 168 80 0 4 14 266
Kangema 83 159 4 3 8 257
Kangundo 234 88 5 4 0 331
Kapenguria 12 24 0 3 12 51
Kapsabet 390 167 9 7 17 590
Karatina 199 360 6 0 15 580
Kehancha 25 6 1 0 3 35
Kericho 366 182 25 26 59 658
Keroka 203 8 0 6 2 219
Kerugoya 297 267 19 0 6 589
Kiambu 141 140 8 17 14 320
Kibera 1 0 0 0 0 1
Kigumo 202 41 1 0 1 245
Kikuyu 344 401 31 101 22 899
Kilgoris 17 2 1 0 1 21
Kilifi 419 91 6 2 23 541
Kilungu 289 65 1 1 16 372
Kimilili 196 67 4 0 36 303
Kisii 1,734 535 90 0 93 2,452
Kisumu 1,335 948 42 3 92 2,420
Kitale 591 168 22 22 222 1,025
Kithimani 590 86 0 9 4 689
Kitui 837 167 22 3 22 1,051
Kwale 563 55 4 5 19 646
Kyuso 42 4 2 0 7 55
Lamu 25 0 0 0 24 49
Limuru 419 327 11 42 35 834
Lodwar 22 2 1 0 41 66
Loitoktok 40 27 2 6 4 79
Machakos 979 396 29 2 74 1,480
Makadara 4 0 0 0 0 4
Makindu 248 50 6 8 19 331
Makueni 95 59 2 14 9 179
Malindi 141 16 4 0 14 175
Mandera 14 0 0 0 5 19
Maralal 8 0 0 0 1 9
Mariakani 377 16 1 91 53 538
Marimanti 16 30 3 0 16 65
Marsabit 31 5 0 0 18 54
Maseno 93 58 1 0 2 154
Maua 90 22 5 1 14 132
Mavoko 928 37 8 919 12 1,904
Mbita 6 13 1 0 1 21
Meru 551 354 26 0 78 1,009
Migori 816 135 28 0 17 996
Milimani Childrens 7 0 0 0 1,389 1,396
Milimani Commercial 8,523 0 687 1,714 0 10,924
Milimani CM 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molo 301 55 4 0 6 366
Mombasa 7,582 371 110 8 0 8,071
Moyale 42 3 0 0 3 48
Mpeketoni 17 1 1 0 2 21
Mukurwe-ini 118 278 8 0 8 412
Mumias 107 19 3 1 17 147
Murang'a 389 1,009 19 1 18 1,436
Mutomo 40 0 1 6 3 50
Mwingi 147 12 10 0 2 171
Nairobi City 9,032 0 0 0 0 9,032
Naivasha 802 214 6 343 21 1,386
Nakuru 1,399 567 58 1 239 2,264
Nanyuki 208 62 2 7 4 283
Narok 368 91 11 3 22 495
Ndhiwa 120 84 11 12 0 227
Ngong' 68 17 3 1 6 95
Nkubu 123 128 4 2 15 272
Nyahururu 519 295 9 31 164 1,018
Nyamira 153 37 6 5 9 210
Nyando 356 110 7 12 33 518
Nyeri 471 809 12 4 110 1,406
Ogembo 252 48 6 7 22 335
Othaya 31 48 3 0 6 88
Oyugis 200 223 16 0 1 440
Rongo 620 10 1 70 5 706
Runyenjes 16 97 0 0 11 124
Shanzu 4 0 0 0 15 19
Siakago 81 74 3 0 14 172
Siaya 286 198 1 2 6 493
Sirisia 35 11 1 0 20 67
Sotik 230 55 9 2 37 333
Tamu 76 11 1 13 2 103
Taveta 18 9 3 0 7 37
Tawa 82 8 0 1 0 91
Thika 2,676 585 22 106 68 3,457
Tigania 26 10 0 0 0 36
Tononoka 9 0 0 0 302 311
Ukwala 65 40 1 1 26 133
Vihiga 297 142 2 3 31 475
Voi 342 56 10 39 15 462
Wajir 24 0 0 0 1 25
Wang'uru 304 213 4 2 22 545
Webuye 197 35 9 14 38 293
Winam 546 76 8 6 8 644
Wundanyi 45 54 1 0 20 120
All Courts 58,391 15,698 1,646 4,512 4,433 84,680
Annex 2.10 Resolved civil cases by type and Magistrate Court Station.
MC Station Civil Cases Probate and Divorce and Workman Children All Civil
Admin. Separation Compensation Civil Cases
Baricho 152 105 5 0 15 277
Bomet 98 0 11 0 36 145
Bondo 188 368 8 1 1 566
Bungoma 1,081 120 12 121 4 1,338
Busia 205 95 5 37 2 344
Butali 144 2 2 160 4 312
Butere 127 217 1 13 85 443
Chuka 146 66 5 0 13 230
Eldama Ravine 162 42 2 8 27 241
Eldoret 2,230 70 33 53 66 2,452
Embu 753 199 54 8 111 1,125
Engineer 70 56 1 6 9 142
Garissa 20 0 0 0 4 24
Garsen 15 0 0 0 4 19
Gatundu 328 241 2 109 7 687
Gichugu 37 234 7 0 4 282
Githongo 70 25 5 0 7 107
Githunguri 220 235 22 19 0 496
Hamisi 43 51 2 10 15 121
Hola 40 2 6 0 3 51
Homa bay 109 108 9 12 21 259
Isiolo 61 7 7 1 11 87
Iten 69 43 0 34 1 147
JKIA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kabarnet 31 47 1 0 22 101
Kajiado 167 63 8 231 2 471
Kakamega 306 112 12 7 44 481
Kakuma 0 0 4 0 0 4
Kaloleni 142 7 0 140 1 290
Kandara 202 14 2 21 18 257
Kangema 60 23 7 4 8 102
Kangundo 233 62 8 0 1 304
Kapenguria 21 24 2 3 17 67
Kapsabet 159 66 6 14 5 250
Karatina 214 170 8 0 2 394
Kehancha 14 4 2 0 2 22
Kericho 491 124 21 35 35 706
Keroka 537 8 1 22 1 569
Kerugoya 306 161 24 2 5 498
Kiambu 255 174 17 52 10 508
Kibera 2 0 0 0 0 2
Kigumo 349 45 3 3 0 400
Kikuyu 259 178 34 75 9 555
Kilgoris 93 1 2 0 3 99
Kilifi 468 88 3 36 32 627
Kilungu 366 9 2 14 19 410
Kimilili 142 17 8 0 21 188
Kisii 1,235 130 53 0 88 1,506
Kisumu 840 275 43 26 76 1,260
Kitale 615 84 26 27 156 908
Kithimani 233 40 2 0 0 275
Kitui 317 169 9 4 7 506
Kwale 474 3 4 11 12 504
Kyuso 123 5 2 0 1 131
Lamu 25 0 0 0 24 49
Limuru 249 168 22 55 33 527
Lodwar 23 1 1 1 13 39
Loitoktok 7 12 0 5 1 25
Machakos 1,548 162 35 258 80 2,083
Makadara 6 0 0 0 0 6
Makindu 715 7 9 1 15 747
Makueni 194 43 1 14 1 253
Malindi 531 2 10 77 31 651
Mandera 16 0 0 0 3 19
Maralal 9 5 1 0 10 25
Mariakani 367 1 2 131 39 540
Marimanti 14 24 2 0 6 46
Marsabit 34 0 0 0 18 52
Maseno 295 37 0 5 2 339
Maua 1,146 281 61 17 138 1,643
Mavoko 734 0 4 703 5 1,446
Mbita 30 7 2 1 0 40
Meru 2,164 172 142 1 54 2,533
Migori 430 41 24 0 8 503
Milimani Childrens 4 0 0 0 4,042 4,046
Milimani Commercial 4,031 2 683 1,892 0 6,608
Milimani CM 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molo 243 12 0 1 1 257
Mombasa 6,436 46 50 524 1 7,057
Moyale 11 0 1 1 16 29
Mpeketoni 21 0 1 0 0 22
Mukurwe-ini 52 70 3 0 4 129
Mumias 290 3 4 22 15 334
Murang'a 336 147 12 10 1 506
Mutomo 59 0 1 6 3 69
Mwingi 184 153 13 0 3 353
Nairobi City 8,904 0 0 0 0 8,904
Naivasha 670 193 11 352 13 1,239
Nakuru 2,490 165 60 308 157 3,180
Nanyuki 180 56 22 4 13 275
Narok 235 11 6 0 13 265
Ndhiwa 82 33 10 4 0 129
Ngong' 57 17 2 1 4 81
Nkubu 351 120 23 0 46 540
Nyahururu 275 135 12 19 66 507
Nyamira 104 4 9 1 5 123
Nyando 210 15 8 16 19 268
Nyeri 460 269 31 7 119 886
Ogembo 437 1 10 72 17 537
Othaya 72 56 2 0 6 136
Oyugis 233 215 16 0 0 464
Rongo 224 37 10 0 11 282
Runyenjes 43 96 1 0 2 142
Shanzu 7 0 0 0 5 12
Siakago 204 202 14 0 16 436
Siaya 172 316 7 6 7 508
Sirisia 30 4 2 0 14 50
Sotik 393 20 13 10 45 481
Tamu 80 2 0 28 2 112
Taveta 7 3 0 0 0 10
Tawa 183 7 0 0 0 190
Thika 1,399 489 31 196 106 2,221
Tigania 74 6 6 0 9 95
Tononoka 12 0 0 0 229 241
Ukwala 202 40 2 1 31 276
Vihiga 174 68 8 1 8 259
Voi 140 47 4 85 27 303
Wajir 14 0 0 0 11 25
Wang'uru 340 151 12 1 19 523
Webuye 167 9 7 16 23 222
Winam 480 1 26 67 14 588
Wundanyi 25 54 1 1 29 110
All Courts 54,356 8,627 1,963 6,240 6,700 77,886
Annex 2.11 Pending criminal and civil cases by type and Magistrate Court Station
MC Station Pending Criminal Cases Pending Civil Cases
Sexual Offences
Criminal Cases
Compensation
All Civil Cases

Children Civil
Probate and
All Criminal
Separation
Civil Cases
Workman
Criminal
Children
Divorce
Inquest
Admin
Traffic
Cases
Baricho 579 111 1 34 403 1,128 822 59 4 6 27 918
Bomet 414 36 1 3 58 512 351 1 13 4 176 545
Bondo 180 3 1 1 22 207 146 151 3 11 3 314
Bungoma 733 186 52 10 0 981 967 20 45 43 52 1,127
Busia 2,929 462 83 98 213 3,785 435 384 3 32 6 860
Butali 627 45 5 1 21 699 240 47 0 344 69 700
Butere 257 41 1 36 7 342 658 46 5 27 22 758
Chuka 680 66 4 23 360 1,133 943 77 40 0 47 1,107
Eldama Ravine 136 41 3 0 10 190 184 149 0 18 5 356
Eldoret 5,126 950 51 63 1,369 7,559 2,923 286 45 95 60 3,409
Embu 1,175 94 0 40 258 1,567 381 59 21 8 111 580
Engineer 426 73 7 6 111 623 245 56 1 6 3 311
Garissa 986 97 1 10 214 1,308 149 0 1 1 42 193
Garsen 314 56 1 6 24 401 16 0 0 1 2 19
Gatundu 722 85 0 19 23 849 810 83 13 96 1 1,003
Gichugu 297 27 2 10 1 337 373 80 4 1 16 474
Githongo 305 67 1 14 11 398 156 16 6 2 10 190
Githunguri 461 52 8 2 2 525 259 125 9 22 2 417
Hamisi 818 64 2 11 28 923 10 0 0 0 11 21
Hola 167 34 2 13 6 222 22 0 5 0 12 39
Homa bay 687 54 14 15 97 867 395 356 13 2 17 783
Isiolo 769 65 8 1 75 918 172 2 4 1 14 193
Iten 411 58 12 0 0 481 27 0 0 0 4 31
JKIA 91 1 1 0 13 106 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kabarnet 118 18 0 1 5 142 18 0 0 2 15 35
Kajiado 1,212 87 22 79 227 1,627 1,677 27 4 737 12 2,457
Kakamega 3,395 250 26 268 433 4,372 1,206 570 54 176 151 2,157
Kakuma 183 19 0 2 6 210 7 0 0 0 8 15
Kaloleni 85 65 2 1 44 197 303 22 0 102 1 428
Kandara 870 112 0 31 61 1,074 338 66 0 200 0 604
Kangema 256 45 1 1 42 345 114 136 0 1 13 264
Kangundo 779 89 3 16 18 905 218 26 3 4 1 252
Kapenguria 1,034 103 3 70 39 1,249 9 0 0 0 8 17
Kapsabet 1,434 407 30 49 8 1,928 1,354 101 15 160 13 1,643
Karatina 562 72 6 8 54 702 929 190 14 121 14 1,268
Kehancha 201 24 0 9 10 244 9 2 1 0 1 13
Kericho 1,520 181 24 69 247 2,041 1,585 58 55 108 44 1,850
Keroka 455 88 10 5 71 629 15 0 8 0 1 24
Kerugoya 416 11 14 7 78 526 1,056 106 10 2 1 1,175
Kiambu 960 87 6 5 47 1,105 1,086 34 9 35 5 1,169
Kibera 6,006 360 36 28 6,022 12,452 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kigumo 1,853 154 84 5 424 2,520 190 4 2 4 1 201
Kikuyu 1,365 139 8 89 155 1,756 1,292 223 42 136 13 1,706
Kilgoris 782 139 5 17 6 949 270 1 9 6 2 288
Kilifi 735 238 7 28 60 1,068 105 3 16 37 8 169
Kilungu 318 54 3 20 85 480 229 56 1 13 3 302
Kimilili 910 147 19 22 29 1,127 289 50 23 0 68 430
Kisii 1,387 152 27 297 30 1,893 2,867 405 108 21 6 3,407
Kisumu 2,317 77 14 81 2,534 5,023 2,889 673 29 135 406 4,132
Kitale 3,021 492 15 67 265 3,860 1,402 84 102 69 92 1,749
Kithimani 632 130 12 16 46 836 482 46 2 10 4 544
Kitui 2,083 425 23 26 26 2,583 4,413 2 100 1 27 4,543
Kwale 931 248 1 39 177 1,396 1,311 52 10 32 25 1,430
Sexual Offences
Criminal Cases
Compensation
All Civil Cases

Children Civil
Probate and
All Criminal
Separation
Civil Cases
Workman
Criminal
Children
Divorce
Inquest
Admin
Traffic
Cases
Kyuso 75 6 3 1 5 90 148 5 3 0 7 163
Lamu 325 71 6 1 0 403 0 0 0 0 0 0
Limuru 948 83 5 3 26 1,065 1,138 159 2 92 2 1,393
Lodwar 546 168 6 9 36 765 1 1 0 1 48 51
Loitoktok 98 1 2 47 1 149 33 15 2 1 3 54
Machakos 1,185 107 7 104 435 1,838 2,339 234 70 256 4 2,903
Makadara 6,738 730 32 99 1,229 8,828 0 0 0 0 0 0
Makindu 2,307 366 58 45 692 3,468 1,385 43 20 7 16 1,471
Makueni 365 74 23 10 23 495 385 16 1 11 11 424
Malindi 1,417 263 70 17 244 2,011 306 14 1 14 168 503
Mandera 51 33 0 2 3 89 7 1 1 0 1 10
Maralal 854 54 1 14 73 996 12 5 2 0 5 24
Mariakani 417 73 3 10 124 627 856 15 1 154 14 1,040
Marimanti 323 46 0 4 0 373 51 6 5 0 27 89
Marsabit 415 39 0 0 24 478 0 5 0 0 0 5
Maseno 728 139 7 14 76 964 723 21 3 5 0 752
Maua 2,474 116 11 82 279 2,962 441 175 29 16 32 693
Mavoko 806 69 40 23 313 1,251 1,149 37 7 2,062 7 3,262
Mbita 489 75 7 4 74 649 84 6 11 1 1 103
Meru 1,070 58 14 15 108 1,265 3,047 182 80 589 849 4,747
Migori 718 114 1 21 93 947 2,688 94 26 0 10 2,818
Mil. Anti-corruption 114 0 0 34 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mil. Childrens 1,680 10 0 593 0 2,283 159 0 2 2 6,678 6,841
Mil. Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,151 0 5,718 5,677 0 47,546
Mil. Magistrate 4,555 63 48 55 14,420 19,141 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molo 1,496 310 59 39 423 2,327 992 43 4 1 5 1,045
Mombasa 8,918 350 92 32 8,344 17,736 21,101 325 256 5,377 3 27,062
Moyale 199 26 0 0 23 248 39 3 0 0 9 51
Mpeketoni 215 22 1 0 6 244 0 1 0 0 2 3
Mukurwe-ini 52 12 2 0 2 68 106 208 5 0 4 323
Mumias 718 52 3 75 60 908 1 16 5 24 15 61
Murang'a 1,017 51 25 70 205 1,368 3,224 862 27 1 85 4,199
Mutomo 369 58 0 3 22 452 11 0 0 0 0 11
Mwingi 646 73 3 6 150 878 417 141 12 0 27 597
Nairobi City 612 14 8 23 48 705 130 0 0 0 0 130
Naivasha 1,447 211 55 247 2,046 4,006 2,075 21 46 1,431 13 3,586
Nakuru 6,539 598 86 320 744 8,287 15,781 402 303 1,675 1,497 19,658
Nanyuki 1,306 161 10 4 46 1,527 1,821 6 73 20 42 1,962
Narok 371 168 35 42 263 879 1,241 80 19 90 17 1,447
Ndhiwa 243 60 6 2 16 327 282 51 8 8 1 350
Ngong' 847 102 1 76 20 1,046 11 0 2 0 2 15
Nkubu 689 36 6 32 43 806 264 8 13 11 31 327
Nyahururu 1,371 200 71 431 152 2,225 1,904 160 41 47 99 2,251
Nyamira 768 173 14 2 44 1,001 727 33 0 4 24 788
Nyando 817 145 5 83 336 1,386 1,980 95 27 345 14 2,461
Nyeri 751 80 26 43 3 903 1,450 540 59 21 141 2,211
Ogembo 1,214 117 11 3 30 1,375 1,170 47 28 30 71 1,346
Othaya 321 18 2 33 19 393 10 8 1 0 0 19
Oyugis 576 28 6 17 50 677 94 8 0 0 1 103
Rongo 656 79 3 1 109 848 664 27 9 83 7 790
Runyenjes 344 42 0 4 29 419 21 1 2 0 13 37
Shanzu 1,910 335 15 24 509 2,793 0 0 0 0 0 0
Siakago 972 102 25 46 46 1,191 429 128 25 0 14 596
Siaya 565 61 4 1 7 638 532 118 0 4 1 655
Sexual Offences
Criminal Cases
Compensation
All Civil Cases

Children Civil
Probate and
All Criminal
Separation
Civil Cases
Workman
Criminal
Children
Divorce
Inquest
Admin
Traffic
Cases
Sirisia 367 67 5 16 19 474 32 7 1 0 10 50
Sotik 234 19 7 0 29 289 435 35 17 8 183 678
Tamu 169 40 3 16 1 229 58 9 1 19 0 87
Taveta 208 32 10 7 14 271 105 6 7 0 31 149
Tawa 243 53 0 3 12 311 71 1 1 1 1 75
Thika 1,663 92 12 1 483 2,251 8,616 89 155 418 37 9,315
Tigania 1,749 57 5 21 50 1,882 670 4 8 1 27 710
Tononoka 218 14 0 352 0 584 16 0 0 0 962 978
Ukwala 320 58 0 8 3 389 3 0 3 0 15 21
Vihiga 528 72 5 25 227 857 967 74 16 15 98 1,170
Voi 445 41 12 6 0 504 884 9 16 38 42 989
Wajir 366 55 1 13 18 453 21 0 0 0 9 30
Wang'uru 385 68 5 73 53 584 310 62 9 4 28 413
Webuye 723 117 49 24 81 994 530 26 2 30 24 612
Winam 1,011 129 9 207 52 1,408 577 75 8 15 15 690
Wundanyi 206 29 1 1 1 238 74 0 0 1 29 104
All Courts 128,592 14,566 1,704 5,411 47,691 197,964 157,296 9,697 8,045 21,442 13,187 209,667
Annex 2.12 Case Backlog by Age in Magistrate Court
MC Station 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years Over 5 years All backlog
Baricho 1,185 42 3 1,230
Bomet 597 59 3 659
Bondo 246 28 20 294
Bungoma 962 438 331 1,731
Busia 1,967 842 158 2,967
Butali 798 96 14 908
Butere 195 154 3 352
Chuka 1,172 72 403 1,647
Eldama Ravine 292 66 5 363
Eldoret 4,619 1,663 1,712 7,994
Embu 923 142 89 1,154
Engineer 325 263 15 603
Garissa 772 70 29 871
Garsen 256 28 0 284
Gatundu 534 266 20 820
Gichugu 386 12 15 413
Githongo 234 2 36 272
Githunguri 438 144 51 633
Hamisi 454 119 14 587
Hola 106 6 5 117
Homa bay 374 141 2 517
Isiolo 589 117 28 734
Iten 199 156 14 369
JKIA 60 3 2 65
Kabarnet 68 28 7 103
Kajiado 1,126 694 921 2,741
Kakamega 3,338 925 277 4,540
Kakuma 161 17 0 178
Kaloleni 271 6 100 377
Kandara 779 134 143 1,056
Kangema 112 23 9 144
Kangundo 505 8 2 515
Kapenguria 1,123 48 7 1,178
Kapsabet 1,730 492 318 2,540
Karatina 754 159 261 1,174
Kehancha 143 21 0 164
Kericho 2,084 640 618 3,342
Keroka 149 82 136 367
Kerugoya 932 75 175 1,182
Kiambu 901 362 939 2,202
Kibera 8,405 587 173 9,165
Kigumo 648 1,175 55 1,878
Kikuyu 1,248 424 215 1,887
Kilgoris 841 276 11 1,128
Kilifi 623 278 267 1,168
Kilungu 318 66 20 404
Kimilili 680 130 103 913
Kisii 2,127 270 77 2,474
Kisumu 5,276 447 99 5,822
Kitale 2,062 632 168 2,862
Kithimani 908 28 43 979
Kitui 1,973 997 1,997 4,967
Kwale 1,080 356 216 1,652
Kyuso 99 15 17 131
Lamu 284 19 19 322
Limuru 579 710 197 1,486
Lodwar 386 15 11 412
Loitoktok 40 53 2 95
Machakos 1,207 398 326 1,931
Makadara 3,592 822 197 4,611
Makindu 2,756 726 182 3,664
Makueni 221 326 120 667
Malindi 1,691 568 77 2,336
Mandera 15 3 0 18
Maralal 510 1 5 516
Mariakani 874 35 30 939
Marimanti 278 16 11 305
Marsabit 237 7 0 244
Maseno 667 353 183 1,203
Maua 2,151 114 299 2,564
Mavoko 2,674 245 215 3,134
Mbita 350 95 2 447
Meru 1,569 961 211 2,741
Migori 1,867 598 7 2,472
Mil. Anti-corruption 30 14 14 58
Mil. Childrens 2,767 3,250 1,818 7,835
Mil. Commercial 6,529 12,826 11,888 31,243
Mil. Magistrate 16,531 767 283 17,581
Molo 1,430 673 564 2,667
Mombasa 14,878 3,730 16,321 34,929
Moyale 236 12 8 256
Mpeketoni 17 18 2 37
Mukurwe-ini 63 16 11 90
Mumias 546 220 121 887
Murang'a 2,166 549 657 3,372
Mutomo 212 39 43 294
Mwingi 522 191 207 920
Nairobi City 130 109 267 506
Naivasha 2,964 1,047 923 4,934
Nakuru 5,673 3,216 2,216 11,105
Nanyuki 2,322 188 145 2,655
Narok 704 388 304 1,396
Ndhiwa 247 37 8 292
Ngong' 126 7 8 141
Nkubu 270 25 28 323
Nyahururu 494 850 444 1,788
Nyamira 702 192 67 961
Nyando 1,241 375 229 1,845
Nyeri 1,157 361 129 1,647
Ogembo 1,066 546 256 1,868
Othaya 245 4 21 270
Oyugis 15 7 33 55
Rongo 556 212 26 794
Runyenjes 147 26 5 178
Shanzu 978 452 32 1,462
Siakago 748 127 295 1,170
Siaya 266 51 322 639
Sirisia 60 9 0 69
Sotik 270 121 30 421
Tamu 131 12 5 148
Taveta 195 59 0 254
Tawa 157 40 5 202
Thika 757 1,353 2,215 4,325
Tigania 616 643 344 1,603
Tononoka 1,016 325 67 1,408
Ukwala 38 21 12 71
Vihiga 410 99 163 672
Voi 808 85 86 979
Wajir 267 4 0 271
Wang'uru 278 59 82 419
Webuye 529 138 105 772
Winam 1,107 325 213 1,645
Wundanyi 223 37 12 272
All Courts 152,935 54,244 53,474 260,653
Annex 2.13 SJT implementation status on reduction of case backlog in Magistrate Court
MC Station SJT target on Resolved backlog Case backlog % change in case
reduction of case cases older than 5 older than 5 years backlog older than
backlog older than years between 1st as at 30th June, 5 years between 1st
5 years as at 1st Jan Jan 2017 and 30th 2018 Jan 2017 and 30th
2017 June 2018 June 2018
Baricho 24 3 27 -88%
Bomet 52 3 51 -94%
Bondo 10 20 28 100%
Bungoma 709 331 3,036 -53%
Busia 152 158 91 4%
Butali 83 14 86 -83%
Butere 17 3 118 -82%
Chuka 499 403 122 -19%
Eldama Ravine 101 5 91 -95%
Eldoret 848 1712 571 102%
Embu 776 89 1,320 -89%
Engineer 6 15 2 150%
Garissa 34 29 33 -15%
Garsen 1 0 0 -100%
Gatundu 174 20 494 -89%
Gichugu 16 15 65 -6%
Githongo 4 36 36 800%
Githunguri 215 51 166 -76%
Hamisi 21 14 16 -33%
Hola 12 5 20 -58%
Homa bay 27 2 18 -93%
Isiolo 41 28 19 -32%
Iten 903 14 2,063 -98%
JKIA 0 2 2 100%
Kabarnet 37 7 63 -81%
Kajiado 1,007 921 217 -9%
Kakamega 351 277 153 -21%
Kakuma 0 0 0 0%
Kaloleni 57 100 143 75%
Kandara 153 143 21 -7%
Kangema 48 9 75 -81%
Kangundo 40 2 47 -95%
Kapenguria 20 7 39 -65%
Kapsabet 442 318 172 -28%
Karatina 323 261 68 -19%
Kehancha 52 0 100 -100%
Kericho 745 618 307 -17%
Keroka 114 136 208 19%
Kerugoya 67 175 221 161%
Kiambu 1,074 939 348 -13%
Kibera 320 173 133 -46%
Kigumo 205 55 290 -73%
Kikuyu 315 215 211 -32%
Kilgoris 36 11 59 -69%
Kilifi 729 267 1,106 -63%
Kilungu 2 20 9 900%
Kimilili 169 103 31 -39%
2017 June 2018 June 2018
Kisii 351 77 1,344 -78%
Kisumu 347 99 535 -71%
Kitale 664 168 605 -75%
Kithimani 33 43 102 30%
Kitui 2,360 1,997 158 -15%
Kwale 345 216 266 -37%
Kyuso 33 17 5 -48%
Lamu 9 19 21 111%
Limuru 61 197 519 223%
Lodwar 17 11 9 -35%
Loitoktok 0 2 0 0%
Machakos 2,659 326 2,337 -88%
Makadara 1,061 197 699 -81%
Makindu 637 182 498 -71%
Makueni 157 120 77 -24%
Malindi 418 77 465 -82%
Mandera 5 0 0 -100%
Maralal 6 5 3 -17%
Mariakani 34 30 53 -12%
Marimanti 7 11 19 57%
Marsabit 2 0 2 -100%
Maseno 322 183 554 -43%
Maua 871 299 1,147 -66%
Mavoko 22 215 1 877%
Mbita 7 2 4 -71%
Meru 4,023 211 2,222 -95%
Migori 39 7 114 -82%
Mil. Anti-corruption 34 14 17 -59%
Mil. Childrens 5,702 1,818 2,709 -68%
Mil. Commercial 19,836 11,888 5,407 -40%
Mil. Magistrate 389 283 144 -27%
Molo 738 564 709 -24%
Mombasa 21,855 16,321 4,076 -25%
Moyale 9 8 6 -11%
Mpeketoni 1 2 1 100%
Mukurwe-ini 8 11 7 38%
Mumias 261 121 658 -54%
Murang'a 849 657 1,134 -23%
Mutomo 41 43 7 5%
Mwingi 434 207 213 -52%
Nairobi City 314 267 73 -15%
Naivasha 1,638 923 274 -44%
Nakuru 17,950 2,216 2,606 -88%
Nanyuki 311 145 161 -53%
Narok 473 304 173 -36%
Ndhiwa 10 8 2 -20%
Ngong' 74 8 4 -89%
Nkubu 244 28 124 -89%
2017 June 2018 June 2018
Nyahururu 1,400 444 275 -68%
Nyamira 145 67 72 -54%
Nyando 1,187 229 70 -81%
Nyeri 452 129 1,441 -71%
Ogembo 501 256 458 -49%
Othaya 4 21 10 425%
Oyugis 60 33 65 -45%
Rongo 41 26 57 -37%
Runyenjes 9 5 37 -44%
Shanzu 20 32 9 60%
Siakago 491 295 290 -40%
Siaya 116 322 936 178%
Sirisia 7 0 9 -100%
Sotik 192 30 546 -84%
Tamu 12 5 16 -58%
Taveta 17 0 46 -100%
Tawa 10 5 12 -50%
Thika 3,022 2,215 849 -27%
Tigania 484 344 119 -29%
Tononoka 89 67 21 -25%
Ukwala 10 12 70 20%
Vihiga 369 163 705 -56%
Voi 177 86 91 -51%
Wajir 2 0 1 -100%
Wang'uru 53 82 113 55%
Webuye 237 105 160 -56%
Winam 326 213 471 -35%
Wundanyi 9 12 18 33%
All Courts 106,134 53,474 49,727 -50%
Annex 2.14: Filed cases by type and Kadhis’ Court Station, FY 2017-18
Station Divorce Registration of Matrimonial Misc. Registration of Marriages Succession Other Matters All Cases
Marriage Cause Application Divorce
Balambala 14 15 4 1 2 7 0 0 43
Bungoma 4 21 0 3 0 7 2 3 40
Busia 2 38 0 0 1 1 0 0 42
Bute 11 17 11 0 4 6 3 0 52
Daadab 73 16 6 10 2 3 0 0 110
Eldas 8 7 4 1 9 2 0 0 31
Eldoret 6 26 1 8 3 4 6 0 54
Elwak 60 32 12 0 27 12 6 0 149
Faza Island 11 16 0 2 8 34 10 0 81
Garbatulla 19 39 12 4 4 1 1 0 80
Garissa 213 119 49 3 20 28 33 0 465
Garsen 14 3 17 4 0 25 4 1 68
Habaswein 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 6 14
Hamisi 7 31 1 8 2 6 2 1 58
Hola 17 6 11 10 2 6 7 3 62
Homabay 6 18 4 2 0 4 0 0 34
Ijara 44 31 1 0 13 0 2 0 91
Isiolo 37 62 1 7 19 6 31 0 163
Kajiado 14 23 0 0 1 2 5 0 45
Kakamega 4 18 1 1 0 8 2 0 34
Kakuma 16 0 3 1 1 8 2 0 31
Kericho 7 32 2 2 3 37 1 0 84
Kibera 14 12 0 3 2 2 3 0 36
Kilifi 9 17 3 5 3 36 26 0 99
Kisumu 51 35 5 18 10 44 7 4 174
Kitui 10 6 0 0 0 3 10 0 29
Kwale 5 15 1 7 1 3 301 0 333
Lamu 24 42 2 30 15 12 6 2 133
Machakos 10 13 0 0 0 22 5 1 51
Malindi 69 42 0 1 1 0 35 0 148
479
480
Station Divorce Registration of Matrimonial Misc. Registration of Marriages Succession Other Matters All Cases
Marriage Cause Application Divorce
Mandera 38 24 2 12 0 4 22 1 103
Mariakani 20 43 0 1 17 0 14 0 95
Marsabit 20 25 13 1 25 10 10 0 104
Maua 5 4 0 0 2 0 4 0 15
Merti 5 17 31 0 4 22 4 0 83
Migori 6 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 12
Mombasa 156 900 2 11 201 85 199 0 1,554
Moyale 20 28 2 4 7 7 28 7 103
Mpeketoni 6 13 0 6 1 5 1 10 42
Msambweni 2 27 2 4 7 6 32 0 80
Muranga 1 2 0 2 0 14 1 0 20
Mwingi 0 9 0 9 0 0 1 0 19
Nairobi 138 212 132 380 210 587 98 0 1,757
Nakuru 29 10 3 0 1 42 3 0 88
Nyeri 8 15 0 0 8 2 26 0 59
Takaba 71 48 0 4 11 6 1 0 141
Thika 2 16 0 0 4 0 1 0 23
Voi 9 13 0 1 2 1 3 0 29
Wajir 47 69 108 73 47 39 4 8 395
All Stations 1,362 2,235 446 639 701 1,162 964 47 7,556
Annex 2.14: Resolved cases by type and Kadhis’ Court Station, FY 2017-18
KC Station Divorce Registration of Matrimonial Misc Registration Marriages Succession Other Matters All Cases
Marriage Cause Application of Divorce
Balambala 9 25 3 0 0 1 0 0 38
Bungoma 2 21 2 0 0 2 1 1 29
Busia 18 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 39
Bute 11 26 3 0 1 0 2 0 43
Daadab 81 10 7 3 1 47 0 0 149
Eldas 8 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 13
Eldoret 3 31 1 8 2 2 1 0 48
Elwak 66 27 8 0 18 27 2 0 148
Faza Island 10 9 0 3 7 39 4 0 72
Garbatulla 33 23 5 6 1 1 1 0 70
Garissa 98 121 128 0 19 1 24 0 391
Garsen 13 1 7 1 1 6 1 0 30
Habaswein 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 3 11
Hamisi 7 32 0 6 1 5 2 1 54
Hola 24 5 11 8 3 1 6 3 61
Homabay 14 7 0 1 0 5 0 0 27
Ijara 46 28 1 0 12 1 5 0 93
Isiolo 49 59 0 8 19 6 39 0 180
Kajiado 13 18 0 0 1 2 10 0 44
Kakamega 10 12 0 0 1 1 0 1 25
Kakuma 10 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 16
Kericho 43 22 3 3 1 2 1 1 76
Kibera 14 16 0 2 6 3 3 1 45
Kilifi 9 23 2 3 5 20 19 0 81
Kisumu 23 35 8 28 14 32 32 6 178
Kitui 11 6 0 2 0 . 11 1 31
Kwale 20 9 1 6 33 1 275 0 345
Lamu 18 32 23 21 11 18 16 1 140
Machakos 7 10 0 0 1 1 5 1 25
Malindi 29 53 23 14 3 3 11 0 136
481
482
Mandera 33 27 1 9 3 0 17 1 91
Mariakani 17 38 0 1 0 0 5 0 61
Marsabit 31 3 7 0 0 2 4 0 47
Maua 6 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 10
Merti 6 17 18 0 0 8 0 0 49
Migori 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
Mombasa 235 793 12 14 20 91 199 0 1,364
Moyale 31 28 4 4 5 7 34 9 122
Mpeketoni 11 13 0 0 0 1 2 7 34
Msambweni 8 5 15 6 2 2 32 0 70
Muranga 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Mwingi 0 9 0 9 0 1 0 0 19
Nairobi 161 458 64 306 186 252 77 0 1,504
Nakuru 11 10 2 0 1 35 14 0 73
Nyeri 5 3 1 1 1 10 12 0 33
Takaba 41 63 0 4 2 20 2 0 132
Thika 1 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 19
Voi 9 10 0 2 3 0 5 0 29
Wajir 91 69 109 62 14 10 6 0 361
All courts 1,399 2,251 474 543 404 669 885 37 6,662
Annex 2.15 Trend in filed and resolved cases in Kadhis’ Court by station
KC Station 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
IC RC IC RC IC RC IC RC IC RC
Balambala - - - - - - 51 47 43 38
Bungoma 88 72 53 56 37 6 39 41 40 29
Busia - - - - - - 25 12 42 39
Bute - - - - 32 0 45 78 52 43
Dadaab - - - - 129 13 106 51 110 149
Eldas - - - - 9 0 38 6 31 13
Eldoret 32 46 4 7 40 9 60 51 54 48
Elwak - - - - - 0 173 158 149 148
Faza - - - - - - 237 229 81 72
Garbatulla - - - - - 0 46 32 80 70
Garissa 278 442 68 74 264 32 231 277 465 391
Garsen 35 31 66 57 72 21 85 79 68 30
Habaswein - - - - 47 19 40 6 14 11
Hamisi - - - - - - 57 12 58 54
Hola 56 45 101 79 65 19 65 86 62 61
Homabay - - - - 0 0 17 2 34 27
Ijara - - - - 20 0 124 172 91 93
Isiolo 42 13 0 0 10 8 147 295 163 180
Kajiado 6 2 0 0 24 4 50 40 45 44
Kakamega 185 195 0 0 153 20 107 12 34 25
Kakuma - - - - 462 18 92 63 31 16
Kericho - - - - 27 1 83 72 84 76
Kibera - - 0 0 15 3 29 41 36 45
Kilifi 44 26 15 11 30 8 50 63 99 81
Kisumu 35 47 23 68 140 33 88 41 174 178
Kitale 6 2 10 9 11 0 - - - -
Kitui - - 56 49 12 1 28 20 29 31
Kwale 440 321 169 47 244 159 407 355 333 345
Lamu 47 41 81 70 115 34 172 326 133 140
Machakos 8 5 56 49 11 0 17 24 51 25
Makindu - - 456 135 - - - - - -
Malindi 68 43 14 17 127 44 46 92 148 136
Mandera 241 227 105 100 109 9 173 180 103 91
Mariakani - - - - 9 0 105 102 95 61
Marsabit 80 71 0 0 128 51 122 111 104 47
Maua - - - - - - 16 14 15 10
Merti - - - - - - 122 119 83 49
Migori - - 28 16 14 7 7 6 12 4
Mombasa 528 320 210 350 255 202 536 507 1,554 1,364
Moyale 40 28 0 0 8 19 95 57 103 122
Mpeketoni - - - - - - 18 14 42 34
Msambweni - - - - - 0 99 69 80 70
Murang’a 9 8 0 0 3 2 14 5 20 2
Mwingi - - - - 0 0 12 4 19 19
Nairobi 329 275 328 294 462 389 803 585 1,757 1,504
Nakuru - - - - 121 30 136 25 88 73
Nyeri 31 25 0 0 42 13 58 70 59 33
Takaba - - - - - 0 181 61 141 132
Thika 57 53 24 23 8 3 8 13 23 19
Voi 227 222 11 5 67 0 52 47 29 29
Wajir 407 403 0 0 413 30 192 61 395 361
All Stations 3,319 2,963 1,878 1,516 3,735 1,207 5,504 4,833 7,556 6,662
Annexure 3.1: Tribunals’ Locations and Chairpersons
Name of Tribunal Location Name of Chair person
Business Premises Rent Tribunal View Park Towers, 7th & 8th floor Denis Silas Mbichi Mboroki
(Has regional offices)
Standards Tribunal KIRDI Block ‘D’, door ‘10’ along Gladys Muthoni Mburu
Popo road, South ‘C’
Cooperative Tribunal Reinsurance Plaza, 12th floor room Hon Alex K. Ithuku
1208, Taifa Road,
State Corporations Appeal Reinsurance Plaza 7th floor Aga N/A
Tribunal Khan Walk/Taifa road
Education Tribunal Jogoo House B, Room No. 433 Kiragu Wa Magochi
Transport Licensing Appeals Transcom House, 2nd Floor, Dick Waweru Mbugua
Board Community, Ngong Road.
Rent Restriction Tribunal Crescent House, 1st, 2nd and Hillary K. Korir- Chairperson
3rd Floor, Muindi Mbingu/Moktar
Daddah Street.
Energy Tribunal Nyayo Hse, 24th floor Kenyatta Kioko Kilukumi
Avenue
National Environment Tribunal Department of Resource Surveys Mohamed Balala
and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), Popo
Road, South C (Belle Vue)
Competition Tribunal Kenya Re Towers, 10th Floor, Off Stephen Kipkenda
Ragati Rd, Upper Hill
Public Private Partnership Crescent House, 3rd & 4th Floor, James Muruthi Kihara
Petition Committee Muindi Mbingu/Moktar Daddah
Street.
Micro & Small Enterprises 12th Floor, Re-insurance Plaza, Taifa Hon. Joseph M. Were
Tribunal Road
Competent Tribunal Sheria House, State Law Office, Dr. Henry Kibet Mutai
Harambee Avenue
Sports Tribunal NSSF Building, BLOCK A 24Floor John Morris Ohanga
Western Wing
HIV & Aids Tribunal NHIF Building, 15th floor, Ragati Jotham Arwa
road
Industrial Properties Tribunal Weights & Measures Complex, Block Brown M. Kairaria
A , Popo Road ,South C
Communication & Multi-Media Transcom House, 9th Floor, Ngong Hon. William Oketch
Appeals Tribunal Road
National Civil Aviation Tribunal Transcom House,3rd floor, Ngong Rd Hon. Peter O. Muholi
Legal Education Tribunal Jogoo House A, 5th Floor, Harambee Rose Waithera Njoroge
Avenue.
Political Parties Disputes Milimani Law Courts, Court Room 3, Kyalo Mbobu
Tribunal Nairobi

LIST OF JUDGES
JUDGES IN HIGH COURT (AS AT DECEMBER 2017)
NAME COURT
HIGH COURT JUDGES
1 Hon. Mr. Justice Richard Mwongo HIGH COURT
2 Hon. Mr. Justice Mbogholi Msagha HIGH COURT
3 Hon. Mr. Justice Hatari P. G. Waweru HIGH COURT
4 Hon. Lady Justice Jessie W. Lesiit HIGH COURT

5 Hon. Lady Justice R. P.V. Wendo HIGH COURT
6 Mr. Justice George M. Abaleka Dulu HIGH COURT
7 Hon. Lady Justice Mary M. Kasango HIGH COURT
8 Hon Mr. Justice J.K. Sergon HIGH COURT
9 Hon. Mr. Justice Joel Mwaura Ngugi HIGH COURT
10 Hon.Mr. Justice Fredrick A.Ochieng HIGH COURT
11 Hon.Mr. Justice Luka K.Kimaru HIGH COURT
12 Hon. Lady Justice Ruth Nekoye Sitati HIGH COURT
13 Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph R. Karanja HIGH COURT
14 Hon. Lady Justice Hellen A. Omondi HIGH COURT
15 Hon. Mr.Justice Aggrey O.Muchelule HIGH COURT
16 Hon. Lady Justice Florence Muchemi HIGH COURT
17 Hon. Lady Justice Maureen A. Odero HIGH COURT
18 Hon. Mr. Justice Said J. Chitembwe HIGH COURT
19 Hon Lady Justice Grace M. Ngugi HIGH COURT
20 Hon. Mr. Justice Edward M.Muriithi HIGH COURT
21 Hon Lady Justice Abida Aroni HIGH COURT
22 Hon. Lady Justice Pauline Nyamweya HIGH COURT
23 Hon. Mr. Justice David A.S. Majanja HIGH COURT
24 Hon. Lady Justice Cecilia Wathaiya Githua HIGH COURT
25 Hon. Lady Justice Beatrice Nthiori Thuranira Jaden HIGH COURT
26 Hon. Mr. Justice Weldon Kipyegon Korir HIGH COURT
27 Lady Justice Grace Nzioka HIGH COURT
28 Hon. Lady Justice Christine W. Meoli HIGH COURT
29 Hon. Lady Justice Hedwig I.Ong’undi HIGH COURT
30 Hon. Lady Justice Stella N. Mutuku HIGH COURT
31 Hon. Mr. Justice James Wakiaga HIGH COURT
32 Hon. Lady Justice Rose E. A. Ougo HIGH COURT
33 Hon. Mr. Justice Erick K. O. Ogola HIGH COURT
34 Hon. Mr. Justice George V.Odunga HIGH COURT
35 Hon. Mr. Justice Hilary K. Chemitei HIGH COURT
36 Hon. Mr. Justice James A. Makau HIGH COURT
37 Hon. Mr. Justice Francis Tuiyot HIGH COURT
38 Hon. Lady Justice Roselyne C. Korir HIGH COURT
39 Hon. Mr. Justice George K. Kimondo HIGH COURT
40 Hon. Mr. Justice Alfred Mabeya HIGH COURT
42 Hon. Lady Justice Lydia A. Achode HIGH COURT
43 Hon. Lady Justice Abigail Mshila HIGH COURT
44 Hon. Mr. Justice William M. Muasya HIGH COURT
45 Hon. Lady Justice N.J. Kamau HIGH COURT
46 Hon. Mr. Justice Ngaah Jairus HIGH COURT
47 Hon. Mr. Justice Francis M. Gikonyo HIGH COURT
48 Hon. Mr. Justice Martin Mati Muya HIGH COURT
49 Hon. Lady Justice Esther N.Maina HIGH COURT
50 Hon. Lady Justice Lilian Nabwire Mutende HIGH COURT
51 Hon. Lady Justice Grace W. Ngenye HIGH COURT
52 Hon. Lady Justice Margaret Waringa Muigai HIGH COURT
53 Hon .Justice Enock Mwita HIGH COURT
54 Hon. Justice Charles Kariuki Mutungi HIGH COURT
55 Hon. Lady Justice Farah Amin HIGH COURT
56 Hon. Lady Justice Roselyne E. Aburili HIGH COURT
57 Hon. Justice Anthony Murima HIGH COURT
58 Hon. Justice Robert Limo HIGH COURT
59 Hon. Justice Justus Bwonwonga HIGH COURT
60 Hon. Justice Janet Mulwa HIGH COURT
61 Hon Mr Justice Riechi Stephen Nyangau HIGH COURT
62 Hon Lady Justice Sewe Olga Akech HIGH COURT
63 Hon Lady Justice Winfrida Adhiambo Okwany HIGH COURT
64 Hon Mr Justice Otieno Patrick Okwaro HIGH COURT
65 Hon Mr Justice Anthony Kimani Ndungu HIGH COURT
66 Hon Lady Justice Mugure Thande HIGH COURT
67 Hon Lady Justice Margaret Njoki Mwangi HIGH COURT
68 Hon Mr Justice Githinji Stephen HIGH COURT
69 Hon Lady Justice Dorah O Chepkwony HIGH COURT
70 Hon Lady Justice Ongeri Asenath Nyaboke HIGH COURT
71 Hon Mr Justice Kiarie Waweru Kiarie HIGH COURT
72 Hon Lady Justice Njunguna Lucy Mwihaki HIGH COURT
73 Hon Mr Justice Mativo Muting’a John HIGH COURT
74 Hon Mr Justice Nyakundi Reuben Nyambati HIGH COURT
75 Justice Onyiego John Nyabuto HIGH COURT
76 Lady Justice Cherere Thrispisa Wamae HIGH COURT
77 Justice Ogola Daniel Ogembo HIGH COURT
78 Lady Justice Gitari Lucy Waruguru HIGH COURT
79 Lady Justice Ngetich Rachel C. Biomondo HIGH COURT
Justice Kemei David Kipyegomen HIGH COURT
80 Lady Justice Onginjo Anne ColletaApondi HIGH COURT
81 Lady Justice MathekaTeresiaMumbua HIGH COURT
82 Mr. Justice Nyagah Jesse Njagi HIGH COURT
EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
1 Hon. Mr. Justice Mathews N. Nduma ELRC
2 Hon. Lady Justice Monica W. Mbaru ELRC
3 Hon. Mr. Justice Marete Njagi ELRC
4 Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Onyango ELRC
5 Hon. Mr. Justice Jorum N. Abuodha ELRC
6 Hon. Lady Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa ELRC
7 Hon. Mr. Justice Stephen O.Radido ELRC
8 Hon. Mr. Justice James Rika ELRC
9 Hon. Lady Justice Linnet Ndolo N. ELRC
10 Hon. Mr. Justice Onesmus N. Makau ELRC
11 Hon. Mr. Justice Byram Ongaya ELRC
12 Hon. Mr. Justice Nzioki Wa Makau ELRC
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
1 Hon. Lady Justice Anne A. Omollo ELC
2 Hon. Mr. Justice Oscar A. Angote ELC
3 Hon. Mr. Justice John M. Mutungi ELC
4 Hon. Mr. Justice Nathan Boaz Olao ELC
5 Hon. Mr. Justice Antony O.Ombwayo ELC
6 Hon. Mr. Justice Antony K. Kaniaru ELC
7 Hon. Lady Justice Lucy N. Gacheru ELC
8 Hon. Lady Justice Lucy N. Waithaka ELC
9 Hon. Mr. Justice Peter M. Njoroge ELC
10 Hon. Mr. Justice Stephen M. Kibunja ELC
11 Hon. Mr. Justice Samson O. Okong’o ELC
12 Hon. Mr. Justice Munyao Silas ELC
13 Hon. Lady Justice Mary M. Gitumbi ELC-JTI
14 Hon. Mr. Justice Elijah Ogoti Obaga ELC
15 Hon. Lady Justice Antonina KossyBor ELC
16 Hon. Lady Justice Onyango Jane Muyoti ELC
17 Hon. Lady Justice Ochieng Christine E. Atieno ELC
18 Hon. Mr. Justice Eboso Benard Mweresa ELC
19 Hon. Lady Justice Odeny Milicent Akinyi ELC
20 Hon. Lady Justice Mbugua Lucy NgimaHiuhu ELC
21 Hon. Lady Justice Matheka Nelly Awori ELC
22 Hon. Mr. Justice AngimaYuvinalisMaronga ELC
23 Hon. Mr. Justice Yano Charles Kimutai ELC
24 Hon. Mr. Justice Kullow Mohamed Noor ELC
25 Hon. Mr. Justice Olola James Otieno ELC
26 Hon. Lady Justice Mary ClausinaOundo ELC
27 Hon. Mr. Justice Njoroge Francis Mwangi ELC
28 Hon. Lady Justice Kemei Kimutai Grace ELC
29 Hon. Lady Justice Komingoi LoiceChepkemoi ELC
30 Hon. Mr. Justice Ohungo DalmasOmondi ELC
31 Hon. Mr. Justice CheronoEnockChirchir ELC
32 Hon. Mr. Justice Ongondo George Martin Atunga ELC
33 Hon. Mr. Justice Mbogo Charles Gitonga ELC
www.judiciary.go.ke

So Jar 20172018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

So Jar 20172018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of the Judiciary and the

State of the Judiciary and the

STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

Copyright © 2019 by Judiciary of Kenya: Seventh Edition, 2019

Published in Nairobi, Kenya

Hon. Justice David Kenani Maraga, EGH

However, we also realise that overall

While we have clearly laid out the

The SOJAR Committee was constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice

Dr. Conrad Bosire,

28th February 2019

The chapters in this report provide highlights of activities, challenges,

Effective administration of justice requires strategies beyond the courtroom.

CHAPTER 1 Leadership and Management

CHAPTER 2 Access to Justice

CHAPTER 3 Access to Justice - Tribunals

CHAPTER 5 Human Resource Management & Development

CHAPTER 6 Training and Capacity Building within The Judiciary:

CHAPTER 8 Digital Strategy

CHAPTER 9 Finance And Accounts

CHAPTER 10 The State of the Agenciesand Collaboration in the

AACs Area Advisory Councils IACD International Anti-Corruption Day

1.1 Judiciary Transformation

Launch of the commercial Justice Sector Steering Committee Meeting

1.2 The 2017 General Election

The Late Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph Louis Onguto

• Inheritance Law Booklet

Judiciary committees and taskforces

• The Taskforce on Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms was gazette vide

1.7 Key events presided over by the Judiciary Leadership in 2017/18

1.8 Awards and recognitions

1.9 Delivery of Speeches by the Chief Justice

1.10 Admission of Advocates and swearing in of commissioners

Table 1.1 Number of Advocates admitted to the Bar, 2017/18

DATE OF ADMISSION NUMBER OF ADVOCATES ADMITTED TO THE BAR

The Chief Justice also swore in members of various bodies, including:

v. Members of the National Construction Appeals Tribunal.

1.11 Other highlights for the period

1.12 Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman

The Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman (OJO) is an accelerated grievance management

Table 1.2: Data on Complaint Processing in OJO

STATE OF COMPLAINT PROCESSING 2016/2017 2017/2018

Table 1.3: Data on Prevalent Complaints registered at OJO

TYPE OF COMPLAINT 2016/17 2017/18 CHANGE

Figure 1: Percentage complaints handled by OJO, FY 2017/18

Table 1.4: Trend on complaints processed by OJO ( FY 2014/15 to FY 2017/18)

COMPLAINT PROCESSED 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Table 1.5: Trend on percentage complaints processed by OJO ( FY 2014/15 to FY 2017/18)

COMPLAINT PROCESSED 2014/15 2015/16 2016/217 2017/18

Fig.:Comparative Complaint trends FY 2014/2015 to FY 2017/18

1.14 OJO Outreach and Partnerships

This is realized through undertaking of various activities such as participation in the

1.15 Monitoring Compliance with Practice Directions and Service Charters

2.1.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Judiciary

2.1.2 Pending Cases in the Judiciary.

COURT FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18

Figure 2.3: Percentage Pending cases by Court Type, 2017/18

2.1.3 Case Backlog in the Judiciary

2.1.4 SJT Implementation Status on Reduction of Case Backlog in the Judiciary

Table 2.4: SJT implementation status on reduction of case backlog by court

Court Type Criminal Traffic Civil Overall

2.2 Supreme Court.

2.2.1 Filed and Resolved Cases in the Supreme Court